This article derives from:
Why the Federal Income Tax is Limited to Federal Territory, Possessions, Enclaves, Offices, and Other Property, Form #04.404, Section 2
This article summarizes in a nutshell content from many different places on this site into a single, succinct, and cohesive explanation of how you lose your rights, liberty and freedom by usually unknowingly exchanging them for government privileges. The fact that this process is largely unknown by most Americans is more a product of deficient legal education and legal ignorance than it is choice. That legal ignorance about this subject is deliberately fostered by those in the government and legal profession to protect the main source of their unjust authority over you.
Throughout this site, we refer to equality or rights between you and the government in court is the MAIN source of your freedom, as acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court:
“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)]
So, in order to destroy your freedom or private/constitutional rights, the government must make you subserviant and unequal in relation to itself, and thus to create a “dulocracy”. There is no other way.
“Dulocracy: A government where servants and slaves have so much license and privilege [franchises] that they domineer.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition]
But how, you might ask, is this “dulocracy” created without violating the constitution or the laws protecting property? The answer is that you must CONSENT to it! And, that to entice you to consent, they must bribe or entice you to give up rights in exchange for privileges. The bribe comes in the form of “benefits” or advantages or services offered by statutes. The bribe and the rights you have to give up to procure the bribe, in turn, are “property” from a legal perspective, so in effect, they are enticing you with PROPERTY of some kind:
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 everyone else from interfering with it. That dominion or indefinite right of use or disposition which one may lawfully exercise over 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 embraces everything which is or may be the subject of ownership, whether a legal ownership. or whether beneficial, or a private ownership. Davis v. Davis. TexCiv-App., 495 S.W.2d. 607. 611. Term includes not only ownership and possession but also the right of use and enjoyment for lawful purposes. Hoffmann v. Kinealy, Mo., 389 S.W.2d. 745, 752.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, Fifth Edition, p. 1095]
The property and rights to property can take many forms:
- A privilege. All privileges constitute loans or grants of government property with conditions or legal strings attached taking the form of civil statutes. They can be taken away at the whim of the grantor of the property. This gets back to the original definition of “ownership”, the essence of which is “the right to exclude” per the U.S. Supreme court:
“We have repeatedly held that, as to property reserved by its owner for private use, “the right to exclude [others is] `one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property.’ ” Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 433 (1982), quoting Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 176 (1979). “
[Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987)]
“In this case, we hold that the “right to exclude,” so universally held to be a fundamental element of the property right, falls within this category of interests that the Government cannot take without compensation.”
[Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164 (1979)]
 See, e. g., United States v. Pueblo of San Ildefonso, 206 Ct.Cl. 649, 669-670, 513 F.2d. 1383, 1394 (1975); United States v. Lutz, 295 F.2d. 736, 740 (CA5 1961). As stated by Mr. Justice Brandeis, “[a]n essential element of individual property is the legal right to exclude others from enjoying it.” International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215, 250 (1918) (dissenting opinion).
- A franchise. This is a specific TYPE of privilege which constitutes a contract or agreement. The legal definition of “franchise” is that it is “a privilege in the hands of a subject”. So to put government property in your HANDS or your CUSTODY, you become party to a franchise.
- A commercial benefit offered by government.
- A government “service”. We call these “civil services” in our Disclaimer, Section 4.
- An “entitlement”
- A license.
- Free healthcare which actually isn’t really “free” because they make you pay for it one way or another.
- Old age pension such as Social Security.
- The ability to vote or serve on jury duty. Convicted felons cannot do either in most states, and therefore these two things are PRIVILEGES, not RIGHTS.
- A privilege granted by a statute against the government, such as tax remedies.
- A privilege granted by statute against ANOTHER man or woman who is ALSO party to the same franchise contract or compact that you are party to.
- The civil status that the privilege attaches to, such as “person”, “taxpayer”, “citizen”, or “resident”, all of which are creations of and therefore PROPERTY of their creator, which is the Legislative branch.
The above all constitute property because:
- All rights are property.
- Anything that CONVEYS rights is property.
- Contracts convey rights and therefore are property.
- All franchises are implemented as contracts or agreements and therefore property.
So, to make you the LAWFUL target of any CIVIL STATUTORY enforcement, the only thing the government has to prove is that you either received a government commercial benefit or government property of some kind, or are even ELIGIBLE to receive such a benefit. Those who are “eligible” are assigned a civil STATUTORY status of some kind, such as “person”, “driver”, “citizen”, “resident”, “taxpayer”, etc. This then gives them the lawful authority under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution to “make all needful rules” to REGULATE all those in custody of such property through DIRECT legislation. Thus, you become a SUBJECT because government property is “in your hands”, as the definition of “franchise” proves. The statutes at 5 U.S.C. §553(a)(2) recognize the authority to DIRECTLY regulate your personal conduct as someone in custody of government property without the need for implementing regulations or even public notice!
(a)This section applies, according to the provisions thereof, except to the extent that there is involved—
[. . .]
(2) a matter relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts.
What ALL of the above have in common is that they are government property or loans of government property of one kind or another. THIS, in fact, is why they call it a tax RETURN: You are RETURNING a portion of the government property in your custody, folks!
Most of the time, the government doesn’t even have the burden of proof to produce evidence that you are eligible for the benefit or property or service, because you actually HELP them produce it? How? Because most people are DUMB enough to either REQUEST or INVOKE a statutory civil status on a government form signed under penalty of perjury in order to PURSUE the privilege. This occurs when you fill out a “Driver License Application”, a “Marriage License Application”, or an SS-5 Application for Social Security CARD. The CARD is property of the government on loan to you per 20 C.F.R. §422.103(d).
Acceptance of the application results in a transfer of GOVERNMENT property to you, with conditions or strings attached. Those conditions come in the form of civil statutes that IMPLEMENT the equivalent of a FRANCHISE contract or agreement.
Not surprisingly, even the current definition of “comity” itself recognizes this mechanism of regulating those in receipt, custody, control, or “benefit” of government property as follows:
“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, p. 267]
Who exactly is “granting the privilege” above? Both YOU and the GOVERNMENT! The government as a MERCHANT under the U.C.C. grants it by creating the civil statutory franchise and offering a civil status it LEGISLATIVELY created to which the benefit attaches. It owns everything it creates, as we point out in:
Hierarchy of Sovereignty: The Power to Create is the Power to Tax, Family Guardian Fellowship
You as the BUYER under the U.C.C. also grant it by asking for the civil status that makes you eligible to receive the benefit or property. This is how COMITY works!
Where’s the constitutional problem with this? The problem is that Congress has NEVER had the authority to create or enforce franchises within the constitutional states of the Union!
“Thus, Congress having power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes, may, without doubt, provide for granting coasting licenses, licenses to pilots, licenses to trade with the Indians, and any other licenses necessary or proper for the exercise of that great and extensive power; and the same observation is applicable to every other power of Congress, to the exercise of which the granting of licenses may be incident. All such licenses confer authority, and give rights to the licensee.
But very different considerations apply to the internal commerce or domestic trade of the States. Over this commerce and trade Congress has no power of regulation nor any direct control. This power belongs exclusively to the States. No interference by Congress with the business of citizens transacted within a State is warranted by the Constitution, except such as is strictly incidental to the exercise of powers clearly granted to the legislature. The power to authorize a business within a State is plainly repugnant to the exclusive power of the State over the same subject. It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the Constitution, with only one exception and only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment, and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion. But, it reaches only existing subjects. Congress cannot authorize [e.g. LICENSE using a Social Security Number] a trade or business within a State in order to tax it.”
[License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462, 18 L.Ed. 497, 5 Wall. 462, 2 A.F.T.R. 2224 (1866) ]
Lets now apply these concepts to perhaps the most EGREGIOUS example at the federal level of a DENIAL and DESTRUCTION of equality of you in relation to them, done ironically in the NAME of PROTECTING equality! 42 U.S.C. §1981. So-called STATUTORY “equal protection” is implemented in the enactments of Congress pertaining NOT to the Fourteenth Amendment, but to federal territory ONLY :
(a) Statement of equal rights
All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.
This statute TECHNICALLY produces INEQUALITY and turns JUSTICE into a legislative PRIVILEGE. Whenever you turn justice into a revocable privilege, it becomes INJUSTICE, as we point out in Form #05.050, Section 5.3. It produces INEQUALITY between the governed and the governors because:
- The government is the enforcer and you are not.
- You can’t make your OWN rules for your own property to enforce against the government under the statute as the government does to you, because the statute doesn’t recognize that authority. Equality demands the same rights of ALL parties on both sides.
- You are presumed to CONSENT to the statutes when invoking the status that implements the benefit you seek. Anything you consent to cannot form the basis for an injury under the common law. Thus, you can NEVER sue the government for any part of the statutes you claim the “benefit” of. Thus, you have waived your sovereignty and sovereign immunity to pursue a “benefit”/property. They, however, can sue YOU for refusing to follow the statute as a precondition of receiving its “benefit”. Is that “fair”?
“Volunti non fit injuria.
He who consents cannot receive an injury. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 2279, 2327; 4 T. R. 657; Shelf. on mar. & Div. 449.
Consensus tollit errorem.
Consent removes or obviates a mistake. Co. Litt. 126.
Melius est omnia mala pati quam malo concentire.
It is better to suffer every wrong or ill, than to consent to it. 3 Co. Inst. 23.
Nemo videtur fraudare eos qui sciunt, et consentiunt.
One cannot complain of having been deceived when he knew the fact and gave his consent. Dig. 50, 17, 145.”
[Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856;SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm]
The above is why we put the following warning on the opening page of our website:
“People of all races, genders, political beliefs, sexual orientations, and nearly all religions are welcome here. All are treated equally under REAL “law”. The only way to remain truly free and equal under the civil law is to avoid seeking government civil services, benefits, property, special or civil status, exemptions, privileges, or special treatment. All such pursuits of government services or property require individual and lawful consent to a franchise and the surrender of inalienable constitutional rights AND EQUALITY in the process, and should therefore be AVOIDED. The rights and equality given up are the “cost” of procuring the “benefit” or property from the government, in fact. Nothing in life is truly “free”. Anyone who claims that such “benefits” or property should be free and cost them nothing is a thief who wants to use the government as a means to STEAL on his or her behalf. All just rights spring from responsibilities/obligations under the laws of a higher power. If that higher power is God, you can be truly and objectively free. If it is government, you are guaranteed to be a slave because they can lawfully set the cost of their property as high as they want as a Merchant under the U.C.C. If you want it really bad from people with a monopoly, then you will get it REALLY bad. Bend over. There are NO constitutional limits on the price government can charge for their monopoly services or property. Those who want no responsibilities can have no real/PRIVATE rights, but only privileges dispensed to wards of the state which are disguised to LOOK like unalienable rights. Obligations and rights are two sides of the same coin, just like self-ownership and personal responsibility. For the biblical version of this paragraph, read 1 Sam. 8:10-22. For the reason God answered Samuel by telling him to allow the people to have a king, read Deut. 28:43-51, which is God’s curse upon those who allow a king above them. Click Here for a detailed description of the legal, moral, and spiritual consequences of violating this paragraph.”
[Family Guardian Opening Page; http://famguardian.org]
The key word in the above statute is “benefit“. The PRIVILEGES attached to the civil status of “person” and enforced by the courts is the BENEFIT afforded those who claim the status. Anyone who accepts ANY benefit based on adopting such a status waives ALL constitutional rights and all NATURAL rights. This is explained in the Brandeis Rules documented below:
“The Court developed, for its own governance in the cases confessedly within its jurisdiction, a series of rules under which it has avoided passing upon a large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon it for decision. They are:
[. . .]
- The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.FN7 Great Falls Mfg. Co. v. Attorney General, 124 U.S. 581, 8 S.Ct. 631, 31 L.Ed. 527; Wall v. Parrot Silver & Copper Co., 244 U.S. 407, 411, 412, 37 S.Ct. 609, 61 L.Ed. 1229; St. Louis Malleable Casting Co. v. Prendergast Construction Co., 260 U.S. 469, 43 S.Ct. 178, 67 L.Ed. 351.
FN7 Compare Electric Co. v. Dow, 166 U.S. 489, 17 S.Ct. 645, 41 L.Ed. 1088; Pierce v. Somerset Ry., 171 U.S. 641, 648, 19 S.Ct. 64, 43 L.Ed. 316; Leonard v. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co., 198 U.S. 416, 422, 25 S.Ct. 750, 49 L.Ed. 1108.
[Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 56 S.Ct. 466 (1936)]
The “taxes, licenses, and exactions” mentioned in the statute are examples of CIVIL STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS that TAKE AWAY CONSTITUTIONAL or NATURAL PRIVATE RIGHTS. Such civil statutory obligations cannot be imposed involuntarily, or else slavery in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment and an unconstitutional Fifth Amendment taking would result. Thus, the STATUTORY “equality” mentioned above is equality of TREATMENT in ENFORCING PRIVILEGES or “benefits” against those who have VOLUNTARILY accepted them. ABSOLUTELY OWNED, CONSTITUTIONALLY protected PRIVATE rights CANNOT be taken away by imposing “taxes, license, and exactions” without the express consent of the original PRIVATE owner. That consent (Form #05.003) is usually impliedly or tacitly expressed by claiming the “benefits” of a specific FICTIONAL civil statutory status, such as “person”, “citizen”, or “resident”. The courts will NEVER admit this, because it is the source of ALL of their unjust statutory power over you. You have to KNOW it. By refusing to discuss this CRUCIAL “third rail issue”, this legislation and the courts which enforce it are in effect making your consent to be CIVILLY “governed” essentially invisible, so that you can never find out how you gave your consent or expressly revoke it. This devious process is called “tacit procuration” or “sub silentio”.
“SUB SILENTIO. Under silence; without any notice being taken. Passing a thing sub silentio may be evidence of consent”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1593]
“Qui tacet consentire videtur.
He who is silent appears to consent. Jenk. Cent. 32.”
[Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856;
“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]
The U.S. Supreme Court describes this “tacit procuration” or “sub silentio” as follows:
“The State in such cases exercises no greater right than an individual may exercise over the use of his own property when leased or loaned to others. The conditions upon which the privilege shall be enjoyed being stated or implied in the legislation authorizing its grant, no right is, of course, impaired by their enforcement. The recipient of the privilege, in effect, stipulates to comply with the conditions. It matters not how limited the privilege conferred, its acceptance implies an assent to the regulation of its use and the compensation for it.”
[Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1876)]
Notice the phrase “of course”. They use this phrase so that they don’t have to explain or address the method of consent further. It is their “dirty little secret” that they can’t elaborate on because it is the source of ALL of their unjust authority. They just ASSUME/PRESUME it exists. For more on “invisible consent”, see:
Requirement for Consent, Form #05.003, Section 9.4
The term “all laws” above means CIVIL STATUTORY privileges/benefits mentioned in 5 U.S.C. §553(a)(2) that are NOT, in fact “law” as legally defined, but revocable privileges which must be voluntarily accepted to become the lawful target of ENFORCEMENT activity. For proof, see:
What is “law”?, Form #05.048
This statute is a SUBSTITUTE for the equal protection clauses of the constitution that applies ONLY to CIVIL STATUTORY “persons” domiciled (Form #05.002) on federal territory within the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b). Those NOT so domiciled are beyond the reach of the CIVIL jurisdiction of the federal courts and have no “capacity to sue or be sued” under the federal civil statutes, but retain their standing under the constitution. This is because the Constitution does not limit or control what happens on federal territory, except possibly the Thirteenth Amendment, which applies everywhere IN THE COUNTRY. This statute implements CIVIL STATUTORY PUBLIC PRIVILEGES (Form #05.037) that can be taken away without your consent, not ABSOLUTELY OWNED PRIVATE RIGHTS that cannot be taken away. The “persons” they refer to are fictional civil statutory “persons”, not CONSTITUTIONAL persons”. All constitutional “persons” are HUMAN BEINGS and not Congressionally created “fictions of law” (Form #05.042), also called “straw men”. The rights spoken of attach to the fictional civil statutory status (Form #13.008) OF “person” not to human beings standing on land as the CONSTITUTION does. “Within the jurisdiction” means domiciled (Form #05.002) on federal territory. Domicile (Form #05.002) is a civil statutory protection franchise or privilege, not a PRIVATE right. “Within the jurisdiction” above does NOT refer to people physically within the boundaries of the COUNTRY “United States OF AMERICA” mentioned in the Articles of Confederation. The constitution is “self-executing” and needs no civil statutes such as this one to enforce or to define the extent of enforcement.
“As enacted, the Fourteenth Amendment confers substantive rights against the States which, like the provisions of the Bill of Rights, are self-executing. Cf. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S., at 325 (discussing Fifteenth Amendment). The power to interpret the Constitution in a case or controversy remains in the Judiciary.”
[City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)]
Thus, CONSTITUTIONAL “persons” do not need civil statutes or the civil statuses they attach the privilege to such as the above to be entitled to protection of PRIVATE RIGHTS that are NOT statutory privileges within any court. This statute is therefore a devious attempt to deceive the reader into exchanging your PRIVATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS for REVOCABLE STATUTORY PUBLIC PRIVILEGES. Don’t go for it! As a practical matter, the reader must always be aware that YOU CANNOT BE A CONSTITUTIONAL PERSON AND A STATUTORY PERSON under federal law at the SAME time! They are mutually exclusive and non-overlapping. This is the main implication of City of Boerne above and the Brandeis Rules, in fact. Thus, they are using EQUIVOCATION between the STATUTORY and CONSTITUTIONAL contexts for “person” to deceive the reader into thinking they are equivalent. For more on “equivocation” as a tool of tyranny and deception, see:
Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014, Section 16.1
Some federal courts have INCORRECTLY interpreted this statute as an attempt to IMPLEMENT the Fourteenth Amendment’s “necessary and proper” clause, clause 5, which says
“The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
… but this is simply not what it does, as explained in City of Boerne above. For an example of this MISINTERPRETATION of the purpose of this amendment, see the following, which deals with a closely related statute to this one:
- Section 1983 Litigation, Litigation Tool #08.008
- Rosenstock’s Section 1983 Civil Rights Digest, Litigation Tool #08.009
It’s now crystal clear to all readers from this discussion to not be tricked into thinking the beneficent government has crafted a civil rights statute for the protection and REAL benefit of the American people. Those days are long gone where legislation helps us.
The artfully employed, but always pernicious application of presumption, is ever present in nearly every confusing, obfuscated federal statute and regulation. And the end goal is the destruction of personal liberty and the aggrandizement of money and power taken from the people, with a corresponding decrease in the freedom and liberty of these same sovereign people.
Stated simply, over a period of many decades, through the abuse of legislation and the pernicious drafting of same, the nation’s core founding principles, have steadfastly been eroded, destroyed, and attacked from within, by the senators, by the elected representatives, and the many presidents who betrayed the American people and abrogated their respective oaths of office. It goes far beyond the pale and is the very essence of the devil incarnate.
These B.S. civil rights statutes in 42 U.S.C. are similar to the closely distanced steel rails/fences, that slowly narrow so the swine and cows will naturally form an obedient, single file line, and walk mindlessly in lock step, prior to their execution inside the meat harvesting and packing plants.
The corrupted statutes and regulations trick the masses of people and act as inducements and legal fences, to herd and guide the unsuspecting sheeple, to their own eventual slaughter.
For more on the main subjects of this article, which are equality and franchises, see:
- Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030
- Requirement for Equal Protection and Equal Treatment, Form #05.033