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”. 

The exemption of the United States from being impleaded without their consent is, as has often been affirmed by this court, as absolute as that of the crown of England or any other sovereign. In Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 411, Chief Justice MARSHALL said: 'The universally-received opinion is that [106 U.S. 196, 227]   no suit can be commenced or prosecuted against the United States.' In Beers v. Arkansas, 20 How. 527, 529, Chief Justice TANEY said: 'It is an established principle of jurisprudence, in all civilized nations, that the sovereign cannot be sued in its own courts, or in any other, without its consent and permission; but it may, if it thinks proper, waive this privilege, and permit itself to be made a defendant in a suit by individuals, or by another state. And as this permission is altogether voluntary on the part of the sovereignty, it follows that it may prescribe the terms and conditions on which it consents to be sued, and the manner in which the suit shall be conducted, and may withdraw its consent whenever it may suppose that justice to the public requires it.' In the same spirit, Mr. Justice DAVIS, delivering the judgment of the court in Nichols v. U. S. 7 Wall. 122, 126, said: 'Every government has an inherent right to protect itself against suits, and if, in the liberality of legislation they are permitted, it is only on such terms and conditions as are prescribed by statute. The principle is fundamental, applies to every sovereign power, and, but for the protection which it affords, the government would be unable to perform the various duties for which it was created.' See, also, U. S. v. Clarke, 8 Pet. 436, 444; Cary v. Curtis, 3 How. 236, 245, 256; U. S. v. McLemore, 4 How. 286, 289; Hill v. U. S. 9 How. 386, 389; Recside v. Walker, 11 How. 272, 290; De Groot v. U. S. 5 Wall. 419, 431; U. S. v. Eckford, 6 Wall. 484, 488; The Siren, 7 Wall. 152, 154; The Davis, 10 Wall. 15, 20; U. S. v. O'Keefe, 11 Wall. 178; Case v. Terrell, 11 Wall. 199, 201; Carr v. U. S. 98 U.S. 433 , 437; U. S. v. Thompson, 98 U.S. 486 , 489; Railroad Co. v. Tennessee, 101 U.S. 337 ; Railroad Co. v. Alabama, 101 U.S. 832 .

[U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882)]

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:

When a State engages in ordinary commercial ventures, it acts like a private person, outside the area of its "core" responsibilities, and in a way unlikely to prove essential to the fulfillment of a basic governmental obligation. A Congress that decides to regulate those state commercial activities rather than to exempt the State likely believes that an exemption, by treating the State differently from identically situated private persons, would threaten the objectives of a federal regulatory program aimed primarily at private conduct. Compare, e.g. , 12 U. S. C. §1841(b) (1994 ed., Supp. III) (exempting state companies from regulations covering federal bank holding companies); 15 U. S. C. §77c(a)(2) (exempting state-issued securities from federal securities laws); and 29 U. S. C §652(5) (exempting States from the definition of "employer[s]" subject to federal occupational safety and health laws), with 11 U. S. C. §106(a) (subjecting States to federal bankruptcy court judgments); 15 U. S. C. §1122(a) (subjecting States to suit for violation of Lanham Act); 17 U. S. C. §511(a) (subjecting States to suit for copyright infringement); 35 U. S. C. §271(h) (subjecting States to suit for patent infringement). And a Congress that includes the State not only within its substantive regulatory rules but also (expressly) within a related system of private remedies likely believes that a remedial exemption would similarly threaten that program. See Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd. v. College Savings Bank, ante , at ___ ( Stevens , J., dissenting). It thereby avoids an enforcement gap which, when allied with the pressures of a competitive marketplace, could place the State's regulated private competitors at a significant disadvantage.

These considerations make Congress' need to possess the power to condition entry into the market upon a waiver of sovereign immunity (as "necessary and proper" to the exercise of its commerce power) unusually strong, for to deny Congress that power would deny Congress the power effectively to regulate private conduct. Cf. California v. Taylor , 353 U. S. 553, 566 (1957). At the same time they make a State's need to exercise sovereign immunity unusually weak, for the State is unlikely to have to supply what private firms already supply, nor may it fairly demand special treatment, even to protect the public purse, when it does so. Neither can one easily imagine what the Constitution's founders would have thought about the assertion of sovereign immunity in this special context. These considerations, differing in kind or degree from those that would support a general congressional "abrogation" power, indicate that Parden 's holding is sound, irrespective of this Court's decisions in Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44 (1996), and Alden v. Maine, ante , p. ___.

[College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense, 527 U.S. 666 (1999)]

Below is a definition of “sovereign immunity” from Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition:

Sovereign immunity. Doctrine precludes litigant from asserting an otherwise meritorious cause of action against a sovereign or a party with sovereign attributes unless sovereign consents to suit. Principe Compania Naviera, S. A. v. Board of Com'rs of Port of New Orleans, D.C.La., 333 F.Supp. 353, 355. Historically, the federal and state governments, and derivatively cities and towns, were immune from tort liability arising from activities which were governmental in nature. Most jurisdictions, however, have abandoned this doctrine in favor of permitting tort actions with certain limitations and restrictions. See Federal Tort Claims Act; Governmental immunity; Tort Claims Acts.

[Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 1252]

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.
   

   "The rights of sovereignty extend to all persons and things not privileged, that are within the territory. They extend to all strangers resident therein; not only to those who are naturalized, and to those who are domiciled therein, having taken up their abode with the intention of permanent residence, but also to those whose residence is transitory. All strangers are under the protection of the sovereign while they are within his territory and owe a temporary allegiance in return for that protection."
   [Carlisle v. United States, 83 U.S. 147, 154 (1873)]

2. Have a right to be “left alone” by the government and their neighbor:
   

   "The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone - the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men."
   [Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928)  (Brandeis, J., dissenting);  see also Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990)]

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:
   

   "But arbitrary selection can never be justified by calling it classification. The equal protection demanded by the fourteenth amendment forbids this. No language is more worthy of frequent and thoughtful consideration than these words of Mr. Justice Matthews, speaking for this court, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 , 6 S. Sup. Ct. 1064, 1071: 'When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power.' The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, [165 U.S. 150, 160]   that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government." 

   [Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U.S. 150 (1897)]

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:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”

[Declaration of Independence]

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:

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property [or income] which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of. . .”

[Budd v. People of State of New York, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)]

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”:

“Property.  That which is peculiar or proper to any person; that which belongs exclusively to one.  In the strict legal sense, an aggregate of rights which are guaranteed and protected by the government.  Fulton Light, Heat & Power Co. v. State, 65 Misc.Rep. 263, 121 N.Y.S. 536.  The term is said to extend to every species of valuable right and interest.  More specifically, ownership; the unrestricted and exclusive right to a thing; the right to dispose of a thing in every legal way, to possess it, to use it, and to exclude every one else from interfering with it.  That dominion or indefinite right of particular things or subjects.  The exclusive right of possessing, enjoying, and disposing of a thing.  The highest right a man can have to anything; being used to refer to that right which one has to lands or tenements, goods or chattels, which no way depends on another man’s courtesy.

The word is also commonly used to denote everything which is the subject of ownership; corporeal or incorporeal, tangible or intangible, visible or invisible, real or personal; everything that has an exchangeable value or which goes to make up wealth or estate.  It extends to every species of valuable right and interest, and includes real and personal property, easements, franchises, and incorporeal hereditaments, and includes every invasion of one’s property rights by actionable wrong.  Labberton v. General Cas. Co. of America, 53 Wash.2d 180, 332 P.2d 250, 252, 254.

[. . .]

Property within constitutional protection, denotes group of rights inhering in citizen’s relation to physical thing, as right to possess, use and dispose of it.  Cereghino v. State By and Through State Highway Commission, 230 Or. 439, 370 P.2d 694, 697.”

[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1216]

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:

Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. Part IV, Chapter 97 http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sup_01_28_10_IV_20_97.html

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).

An “agency or instrumentality of a foreign state” means any entity— 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.
[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:

Why you are a “national” or “state national” and not a “U.S. citizen”, Form #05.006 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

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:

Presumption: Chief Weapon for Unlawfully Enlarging Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.017 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

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:

“We of this mighty western Republic have to grapple with the dangers that spring from popular self-government tried on a scale incomparably vaster than ever before in the history of mankind, and from an abounding material prosperity greater also than anything which the world has hitherto seen.

As regards the first set of dangers, it behooves us to remember that men can never escape being governed.  Either they must govern themselves or they must submit to being governed by others.  If from lawlessness or fickleness, from folly or self-indulgence, they refuse to govern themselves then most assuredly in the end they will have to be governed from the outside.  They can prevent the need of government from without only by showing they possess the power of government from within.  A sovereign cannot make excuses for his failures; a sovereign must accept the responsibility for the exercise of power that inheres in him; and where, as is true in our Republic, the people are sovereign, then the people must show a sober understanding and a sane and steadfast purpose if they are to preserve that orderly liberty upon which as a foundation every republic must rest.”
[President Theodore Roosevelt; Opening of the Jamestown Exposition; Norfolk, VA, April 26, 1907]

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:

“Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”
[Matt. 7:12, Bible, NKJV]

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”. 

“Implied consent. That manifested by signs, actions, or facts, or by inaction or silence, which raise a presumption that the consent has been given. For example, when a corporation does business in a state it impliedly consents to be subject to the jurisdiction of that state's courts in the event of tortious conduct, even though it is not incorporated in that state. Most every state has a statute implying the consent of one who drives upon its highways to submit to some type of scientific test or tests measuring the alcoholic content of the driver's blood. In addition to implying consent, these statutes usually provide that if the result of the test shows that the alcohol content exceeds a specified percentage, then a rebuttable presumption of intoxication arises.”

[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 276-277]

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.

Supposing this not to be a tax for inspection purposes, has Congress consented to its being laid? It is certain that Congress has not expressly consented. But is express consent necessary? There is nothing in the Constitution which says so. There is nothing in the practice of men, or in the Municipal Law of men, or in the practice of nations, or the Law of nations that says so. Silence gives consent, is the rule of business life. A tender of bank bills is as good as one of coin, unless the bills are objected to. To stand by, in silence, and see another sell your property, binds you. These are mere instances of the use of the maxim in the Municipal Law. In the Law of Nations, it is equally potent. Silent acquiescence in the breach of a treaty binds a Nation. ( Vattel, ch. 16, sec. 199, book 1. See book 2, sec. 142, et seq. as to usucaption and prescription, and sec. 208 as to ratification.

Express consent, then, not being necessary, is there any thing from which consent may be implied? There is-length of time. The Ordinance was passed the 24th of January, 1842, and has been in operation ever since. If Congress had been opposed to the Ordinance, it had but to speak, to be obeyed. It spoke not-it has never spoken: therefore, it has not been opposed to the Ordinance, but has been consenting to it.

4. Say, however, that Congress has not consented to the Ordinance, then the most that can be maintained is, that the Ordinance stands subject to “the revision and control of Congress.” It stands a Law-a something susceptible of revision and control-not a something unsusceptible of revision and control as a void thing would be.
[Padelford, Fay & Co. v. Mayor and Aldermen of City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438, WL 1492, (1854)]

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.

CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE

DIVISION 3.  OBLIGATIONS

PART 2.  CONTRACTS

CHAPTER 3.  CONSENT

Section 1589

 1589.  A voluntary acceptance of the benefit of a transaction is equivalent to a consent to all the obligations arising from it, so far as the facts are known, or ought to be known, to the person accepting.

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.

5.2.   Medicare.

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:

In International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), the Supreme Court held that a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant consistent with due process only if he or she has "certain minimum contacts" with the relevant forum "such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.' " Id. at 316 (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 (1940)). Unless a defendant's contacts with a forum are so substantial, continuous, and systematic that the defendant can be deemed to be "present" in that forum for all purposes, a forum may exercise only "specific" jurisdiction - that is, jurisdiction based on the relationship between the defendant's forum contacts and the plaintiff's claim.

[. . .]

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.
[Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L'Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 01/12/2006)]

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.

3.   Your status changed from that of a “nonresident alien” as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B)  to a “resident alien” as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(A).

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:

“The Government urges that the Power Company is estopped to question the validity of the Act creating the Tennessee Valley Authority, and hence that the stockholders, suing in the right of the corporation, cannot [297 U.S. 323] maintain this suit.  …..  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; Wall v. Parrot Silver & Copper Co., 244 U.S. 407; St. Louis Casting Co. v. Prendergast Construction Co., 260 U.S. 469.“

[Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288 (1936)]

 “…when a State willingly accepts a substantial benefit from the Federal Government, it waives its immunity under the Eleventh Amendment and consents to suit by the intended beneficiaries of that federal assistance.” 

[Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (1986)]

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.

“Procuration.. Agency; proxy; the act of constituting another one's attorney in fact. The act by which one person gives power to another to act in his place, as he could do himself. Action under a power of attorney or other constitution of agency. Indorsing a bill or note "by procuration" is doing it as proxy for another or by his authority. The use of the word procuration (usually, per procuratione, or abbreviated to per proc. or p. p.) on a promissory note by an agent is notice that the agent has but a limited authority to sign.

An express procuration is one made by the express consent of the parties. An implied or tacit procuration takes place when an individual sees another managing his affairs and does not interfere to prevent it. Procurations are also divided into those which contain absolute power, or a general authority, and those which give only a limited power. Also, the act or offence of procuring women for lewd purposes. See also Proctor.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 1086-1087]

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.

“Retraxit. Lat. He has withdrawn. A retraxit is a voluntary renunciation by plaintiff in open court of his suit and cause thereof, and by it plaintiff forever loses his action. Virginia Concrete Co. v. Board of Sup'rs of Fairfax County, 197 Va. 821, 91 S.E.2d 415, 419. It is equivalent to a verdict and judgment on the merits of the case and bars another suit for the same cause between the same parties. Datta v. Staab, 343 P.2d 977, 982, 173 C.A.2d 613. Under rules practice, this is accomplished by a voluntary dismissal. Fed.R.Civi1 P. 41(a).”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 1183-1185]

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:

Presumption: Chief Weapon for Unlawfully Enlarging Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.017 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

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:

Resignation of Compelled Social Security Trustee, Form #06.002 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

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:

"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbor to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."
[Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 74 (1906)]

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.

“There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States…In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it.  All else is withheld.”

[Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884)]

“In the United States, sovereignty resides in the people…the Congress cannot invoke sovereign power of the People to override their will as thus declared.”

[Perry v. U.S., 294 U.S. 330 (1935)]

2.   All powers of the federal and state governments derive from and are delegated by We the People through our state and federal constitutions.

“Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law…While sovereign powers are delegated to…the government, sovereignty itself remains with the people.”
[Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)]

_________________________________________

"Whatever these Constitutions and laws validly determine to be property, it is the duty of the Federal Government, through the domain of jurisdiction merely Federal, to recognize to be property.

“And this principle follows from the structure of the respective Governments, State and Federal, and their reciprocal relations. They are different agents and trustees of the people of the several States, appointed with different powers and with distinct purposes, but whose acts, within the scope of their respective jurisdictions, are mutually obligatory. "
[Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 1856]

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.

“Derivativa potestas non potest esse major primitive.[1]

The power which is derived cannot be greater than that from which it is derived.”

[Bouvier’s Law Dictionary Unabridged, 8^th Edition, pg. 2131]

“Quod per me non possum, nec per alium..[2]

What I cannot do in person, I cannot do through the agency of another.”
[Bouvier’s Law Dictionary Unabridged, 8^th Edition, pg. 2159]

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:

Treatise on Government, Joel Tiffany http://famguardian.org/Publications/TreatiseOnGovernment/TreatOnGovt.pdf

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”.

TITLE 28 > PART IV > CHAPTER 97 > § 1603

§ 1603. Definitions

For purposes of this chapter—

(a) A “foreign state”, except as used in section 1608 of this title, includes a political subdivision of a foreign state or an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state as defined in subsection (b).

(b) An “agency or instrumentality of a foreign state” means any entity—

(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:

“The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens,' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. ..."
[Boyd v. State of Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135 (1892)]

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:

“comity.  Courtesy; complaisance; respect; a willingness to grant a privilege, not as a matter of right, but out of deference and good will.  Recognition that one sovereignty allows within its territory to the legislative, executive, or judicial act of another sovereignty, having due regard to rights of its own citizens.  Nowell v. Nowell, Tex.Civ.App., 408 S.W.2d 550, 553.  In general, principle of "comity" is that courts of one state or jurisdiction will give effect to laws and judicial decisions of another state or jurisdiction, not as a matter of obligation, but out of deference and mutual respect.  Brown v. Babbitt Ford, Inc., 117 Ariz. 192, 571 P.2d 689, 695.  See also Full faith and credit clause.”

[Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 267]

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:

“Recognition of the congressional power to render a State suable under the FELA does not mean that the immunity doctrine, as embodied in the Eleventh Amendment with respect to citizens of other States and as extended to the State's own citizens by the Hans case, is here being overridden. It remains the law that a State may not be sued by an individual without its consent. Our conclusion is simply that Alabama, when it began operation of an interstate railroad approximately 20 years after enactment of the FELA, necessarily consented to such suit as was authorized by that Act. By adopting and ratifying the Commerce Clause, the States empowered Congress to create such a right of action against interstate railroads; by enacting the FELA in the exercise of this power, Congress conditioned the right to operate a railroad in interstate commerce upon amenability to suit in federal court as provided by the Act; by thereafter operating a railroad in interstate commerce, Alabama must be taken to have accepted that condition and thus to have consented to suit.”

[Parden v. Terminal R. Co., 377 U.S. 184 (1964)]