“REQUIREMENT For CONSENT” – (PDF file of complete book; FREE; downloadable) 2/6/2014

“REQUIREMENT For CONSENT”

REQUIREMENT FOR CONSENT is a FANTASTIC Book !!!!!!!      And absolute “MUST READ” !!!

If you want to understand the difference between true LAW and statutory law” (legislated ACTS), this book is a “MUST READ”.

To VIEW and/or DOWNLOAD this book, open:

REQUIREMENT FOR CONSENT –    (PDF file of complete book; FREE; downloadable) – courtesy of www.SEDM.org

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Below I present a few interesting and easily verifiable FACTSNOT the book itself – which are explained in great detail in the book above. REQUIREMENT FOR CONSENT –    (PDF file of complete book; FREE; downloadable) – courtesy of www.SEDM.org

One should understand that the ONLY true LAW in America (and in Britain, Australia, Ireland, Canada and Scotland) is the COMMON LAW. Legislated acts (statutes) are, in fact, OFFERS TO CONTRACT. Therefore, statutes are NOT law. Acts (statutes) assume “the force of law” ONLY if you CONSENT to them – in effect, by agreeing to the CONTRACT within that statute. That is what is meant by the term “CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED”. If YOU personally do NOT CONSENT to a statute (an offer to contract), then you are under NO legal obligation to obey that statute. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on this question literally hundreds of times.

“The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do NOT extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force ONLY in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.” - CAHA v. U.S., 152 U.S. 211 (1894)   --- Please note the word "states" above, as opposed to the word "States". The term the States" means ONLY a Territory, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. See: TITLE 7 CHAPTER 35 SUBCHAPTER II Part A -HEAD- Sec. 1301. The term "the several States" or “the States” does NOT mean the 50 sovereign, independent states!  The rights of the individual are … restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government.” CITY OF DALLAS v. MITCHELL, 245 S.W. 944 (Tex.Civ.Appeals-Dallas); 1922

In Britain, Ireland and Australia, the people are well aware that an ACT or STATUTE is merely an OFFER TO CONTRACT, which you are free to accept or reject or accept with YOUR conditions attached. They understand that their constitutions and the Common Law are the ONLY true LAW, in which a crime exists ONLY if you have harmed another man/woman or his/her property. All so-called “statutory laws” enacted by a legislature are mere OFFERS TO CONTRACT, which you are free under the Common Law to either accept, reject or accept conditionally.

A few interesting FACTS:

1.) The IRS is a PRIVATE COMPANY incorporated in Puerto Rico.

2.) ALL MONEY collected by the IRS is turned over to the IMF and BIS (Bank of International Settlements in Switzerland), which then forwards the money to the PRIVATE CREDITOR BANKS, as per the contract of the U.S. BANKRUPTCY of 1933.

(These PRIVATE CREDITOR BANKS include the bankers who own the Federal Reserve, along with bankers based in Britain, Switzerland and Germany. NOT ONE PENNY of the money collected by the IRS from U.S. taxpayers remains in the U.S. for use by the Federal government!!!
(See the U.S. Supreme Court ruling ERIE RAILROAD CO v TOMPKINS, 304 US 64; 1938 which abolished all federal “Common Law” and converted ALL crimes and offenses into “commercial crimes” according to the U.S Bankruptcy Act of 1933. Therefore, when a person walks into ANY American court, he walks in as a DEBTOR under the Bankruptcy Act of 1933, with the judge representing the CREDITORS (the international bankers). It is NOT a true judicial court, but rather a PRIVATE commercial court whose job is to collect money to pay the interest on the National debt to the private bankers.) Further, NO federal court ruling prior to 1938 – including those of the Supreme Court – could be used in U.S. courts henceforth. Commercial law (Maritime-Admiralty Law) had replaced the Common Law as the law in American courts.

3.) The IRS is NOT an agency of the U.S. government.
United States Government Attorneys DENIED that Internal Revenue Service is an agency of the United States Government. BOTH a United States Department of Justice Trial Attorney and a United States Attorney DENIED in SWORN AFFIDAVITS under penalty of perjury. (See the case: Diversified Metal Products, Inc. v T. Bow Trust, Internal Revenue Service, and Steve Morgan; Civil case #: 93-405-E-EJL; US District Court for the District of Idaho)

For copies of the AFFIDAVITS by 2 United States Attorneys, see the web sites:
usavsus.info/IRSnotAgencyOfUS.htm
and
nontaxpayer.net/irsnara0.html

4.) The UNITED STATES is a PRIVATE corporation. It was incorporated in Delaware in 1868 as a foreign British-owned corporation and controlled by international bankers in Europe and the U.S. (The UNITED STATES – a private corporation – and the United States of America are NOT the same entity.) Shortly thereafter the 14th Amendment of 1868 as ratified and included the following phrase: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

One sentence in the 14th Amendment created a NEW legal entity: a U.S. citizen, which had never existed prior to this time; people were citizens of their respective states only. One must note that in order to be a “U.S. citizen, BOTH of the following criteria had to me met: born/naturalized in the U.S. AND subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. The catch was that people living in one of the various states were NOT “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” and were therefore NOT citizens of the private United States corporation. However, every day people VOLUNTEER to become “agents and employees” of this private corporation by simply saying “Yes” to the question: “Are you a U.S. citizen?” By saying “Yes”, they declare they are “agents or employees or officers” of this private United States corporation and become subject to its internal rules – just as employees of Walmart are subject to Walmart’s internal corporate rules.

On February 21, 1871 the District of Columbia Incorporation Act of 1871 was passed and established the “United States” (the private corporation) as the private, municipal corporation of the District of Columbia. In June 20, 1874, the President with advice of Senate abolished and replaced the 1871 government with a commission consisting of three persons. 18 Stat. at L. 116, chap. 337; then reorganized June 11, 1878 by 16 Stat. 419 Chapter 62 (“a permanent form of government for the District was established. It provided …and that the commissioners therein provided for should be deemed and taken as officers of such corporation.”); reorganized June 11, 1878 (20 Stat. at L. 102, chap. 180) was enacted stating that the District of Columbia should ‘remain and continue a municipal corporation,’ Thus, the private, foreign corporation called the “UNITED STATES” became the governing body of the District of Columbia, along with the territories and possessions, but NOT of the various states.

It must be noted that the words “state” and “State” are two different entities. After 1871 until today, any reference to the “various States” or the “50 various States” meant ONLY a Territory, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico – it did NOT means the various sovereign independent states  that created the Union under the Constitution.

TITLE 7 CHAPTER 35 SUBCHAPTER II Part A -HEAD- Sec. 1301. Definitions (5) The term ‘United States’ means the several States and Territories and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. (6) The term ‘State’ includes a Territory and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

(In Black’s Law Dictionary, the word “includes” means ONLY those items which follow it and EXCLUDES all items not listed therein. Therefore, the term “the several States” means ONLY a Territory and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. The termthe several States” does NOT mean the 50 sovereign, independent states!)  In law the definitions and spelling of words are IMPORTANT…

Corporate Officers
” … But by the Act of June 11, 1878 (20 Stat. chap. 180), a permanent form of government for the District was established. It provided …and that the commissioners therein provided for should be deemed and taken as officers of such corporation.”  The District of Columbia v. Henry E. Woodbury, 136 U.S. 472 (1890)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/dccases/woodbury.htm

U,S. Code, Title 28, Section 3002 Definitions:   (15) “United States” means— (A) a Federal corporation;

The “United States” is the “District of Columbia” incorporated.
“The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a State” Volume 20: Corpus Juris Sec. § 1785,
Also: NY re: Merriam 36 N.E. 505 1441 S. 0.1973, 14 L. Ed. 287

In short, the “UNITED STATES” is the “District of Columbia” incorporated, a foreign, private corporation created in Delaware in 1868 and owned by international bankers. That is why ALL federal income taxes collected by the IRS (a private corporation in Puerto Rico) are sent to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) (a private corporation) and thence the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) (a private corporation) for distribution to the international bankers, the true owners (as stockholders) of the UNITED STATES corporation.

You are required to pay federal income taxes SOLELY because you VOLUNTEER to pay them. Go to the IRS web site and it will tell you that the federal income tax is VOLUNTARY!

HOW do you volunteer? By getting a Social Security number; by filling out a W-2 form, by filing a 1040 tax form (which s CONTRACT) and signing it under penalty of perjury; by accepting the “benefits and privileges” offered by the United States (which is a PRIVATE CORPORATION) such as registering to vote, etc.

America is still a COMMON LAW country. And the Common Law includes the RIGHT TO CONTRACT – and the RIGHT NOT TO CONTRACT – with anyone, including the government.

However, once you enter into a CONTRACT, then the parties are governed by COMMERCIAL LAW (the Uniform Commercial Code or UCC; plus ACTS (statutes) passed by Congress.

One should understand that the ONLY true LAW in America (and Britain) is the COMMON LAW. Legislated acts (statutes) are, in fact, OFFERS TO CONTRACT. Therefore, statutes are NOT law. Acts (statutes) assume “the force of law” ONLY if you CONSENT to them – in effect, by agreeing to the CONTRACT within that statute. That is what is meant by the term “CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED”. If YOU personally do NOT CONSENT to a statute (an offer to contract), then you are under NO legal obligation to obey it. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on this question literally hundreds of times.

“The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do NOT extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force ONLY in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.” – CAHA v. U.S., 152 U.S. 211 (1894)   — Please note the word “states” above, as opposed to the word “States”

The Britain, Ireland and Australia, the people are well aware that an ACT or STATUTE is merely an OFFER TO CONTRACT, which you are free to accept or reject or accept with YOUR conditions attached. They understand that their constitutions and the Common Law are the ONLY true LAW, in which a crime exists ONLY if you have harmed another man/woman or his/her property. All so-called “statutory laws” (Acts) enacted by a legislature (e.g., Congress) are mere OFFERS TO CONTRACT, which you are free under the Common Law to either accept, reject or accept conditionally.

It is TRAGIC that so very few American have this knowledge…

“He, who would be deceived, let him.” -ancient Roman maxim of law

“REQUIREMENT For CONSENT”  sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Consent.pdf

on www.SEDM.org

JAMIE_DIMON___JP_MORGAN_CEO__ZeroHedge-com__CARTOON__1-25-2014_CAP

“REQUIREMENT For CONSENT”  sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Consent.pdf

on www.SEDM.org

Advertisements

5 comments

  1. Its to hard for me. I’m so overwhelmed. Are there any lawyers who are down for freedom?

    1. Law students are NO LONGER taught this stuff in law school. Even lower-court (district court) judges have NO IDEA how the Common Law works, so you must be have ALL your paperwork prepared and filed with the court LONG BEFORE you walk into court. Law students study for the BAR Exam – BAR means “British Accredited Registry”, a private company in Britain. In short, they are taking an exam to practice before PRIVATE courts using only PRIVATE law – much like Wal-Mart can create private “laws” (rules) which its employees by employment contract are obligated to follow. (Perhaps a better example is a PRIVATE CLUB: its rules apply ONLY to members. The BAR is similar a club.) YOU, as a man or woman customer, are NOT obligated to follow Wal-Mart’s private laws, since you have NO contract with them. If YOU “violate” one of Wal-Mart’s “laws”, Wal-Mart has NO authority to penalize you – UNLESS you AGREE (usually by some type of contract) to be under the authority of Wal-Mart – you give your CONSENT. In America, even today, the ONLY true laws are the Common Law. Acts, statutes, codes, regulations, by-laws, ordinances, etc. are simply OFFERS TO CONTRACT, each of which you can choose to accept or refuse as YOU wish. When you enter a “regular courtroom” the judge will make the PRESUMPTION that you are voluntarily consenting to follow his rules. And the ancient maxim of law states, “A presumption NOT rebutted becomes a fact in law” for that particular case. In short, it is as if you entered Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart presumed that you agreed to follow all of its employees’ rules!

      I NEVER walk into a “normal courtroom” where people are lined up like robots to receive their “penalties”. Instead, I always DEMAND a “pre-trial conference” with the judge (who may or may not invite the prosecutor). The judge should have received all my paperwork weeks earlier, in which I made clear that I am NOT under his court’s jurisdiction; but INSTEAD he (the judge) is under MY JURISDICTION under the Common Law. If he issues an “order”, I later simply write out a “writ of error” VOIDING his ruling – even if his ruling is FAVORABLE to me !!! WHY? By accepting his ruling, I grant him jurisdiction over me. Therefore, I simply write out a “writ of error” stating his ruling is VOID, then issue by OWN writ (perhaps granting myself the same favorable ruling). Remember to think of the judge as the manager of a Wal-Mart: he can threaten you and issue you all kinds of orders and papers, but they are all based on his PRESUMPTION that you agree to be under Wal-Mart’s jurisdiction. The judge will make the SAME PRESUMPTION and may issue threats and orders to intimidate you – so you MUST REBUT all his presumptions by VOIDING ALL of his rulings, orders, etc. (even if FAVORABLE to you !!! Remember: “A presumption NOT rebutted becomes a fact in law” for that particular case.

      Lawyers and most district court judges know NOTHING about this process; and will probably end up SCREAMING at you and even threatening you with “arrest for contempt of court”. And you may even spend a day or two in jail. But most superior court judges and certainly all Supreme Court justices are aware of the Common Law. And if the first judge has any brains at all, he will consult a superior court judge to figure out what to do. And once this judge learns how MUCH LEGAL TROUBLE he has created for himself (both criminal and civil), his attitude toward you will change dramatically!

      BUT do not undertake this process until you know a great deal about JURISDICTION, the Common Law, etc – because judges will use many “tricks” to gain jurisdiction over you — and an angry judge who has PROVED that he has actually established jurisdiction over you can do you much harm. (Example: a friend and I were leaving a judge’s private office after having all his traffic violations dismissed. Just before we exited the judge’s office, my friend put on his baseball cap. The judge snapped, “Take off that hat in my court!” My friend took off his cap, at which time I said to my friend something like, “You idiot!”. BY following that judge’s one simple order, my friend had just given the judge jurisdiction over him! The traffic violations were all re-issued and my friend spent a day in jail until his wife paid for all the traffic violations, plus court costs!)

      “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.” is NOT just some cute saying. It is an ancient MAXIM of law and is accepted as truth in most courts. But the word “LAW” refers ONLY to the Common Law, which under our system is simply a restatement of God’s Law – which simply “Do no physical harm to another man or his property.” (Actually, you are considered your own “property”, as is your reputation,etc.)

      LEGISLATED acts, statutes, codes, regulations, by-laws, ordinances, etc. are NOT “laws” – they are simply “OFFERS TO CONTRACT”. In fact, they NEVER become true LAW, which is solely the Common Law. If you AGREE to a statute, that statute will “ASSUME THE FORCE OF LAW” for YOU because you voluntarily agreed to consent. If you do NOT agree with this act (statute), then you simply withhold your CONSENT – so that statute will NOT apply to you. (That is what is meant by “The consent of the governed.”) BUT be aware that COPS and most JUDGES are stupid and will think (“PRESUMPTION”) that a statute applies to EVERYONE!!! If you AGREE to follow a particular law (which may turn out to be very beneficial to you), you have just entered into a CONTRACT – which is PRIVATE LAW. You are therefore bound by this contract to follows all the provisions of this contract – and can be penalized (without trial by jury) for violating this contract. Almost all modern courts are, in fact, COMMERCIAL COURTS (dealing with contracts) which is why you pay fines, etc. without any trial by jury. MAXIM: “The contract is the law.” for a particular case, which means that if you sign a contract, the contents of that contract determine what the law is in your case.

    2. californian · ·

      i too was overwhelmed. it does get easier. the more you learn, the easier it gets. listen to karl lentz on youtube. he breaks it down so simple. ken.

      1. Karl Lentz is OK on “procedures”, but BILL THORNTON explains much better HOW and WHY this works.

        BILL THORNTON has many VIDEOS (some very long, but fun to watch!) on YouTube; but his BEST information is on his web site:
        http://www.1215.org which is SUPERB !!! Plus he recently began adding a huge amount of material he had accumulated, but which was very difficult to find elsewhere. Finally, Bill Thornton usually cites his sources; and if he unsure about any information, he will say so. (1215 is the date of the Magna Charta)

        So, for “newbies” I would advise BILL THORNTON (VIDEOS and http://www.1215.org) and Karl Lentz.

        Another GREAT ARTICLE is: COMMERCIAL LIENS: THE MOST POTENT WEAON by Alfred Adask. (I may have it posted on this site somewhere, but it is easily found.)

        WHO TO AVOID:
        BUT, please, please stay away from MARC STEVENS !!!
        His sole argument is “prove jurisdiction”, which most lower court judges simply ignore BECAUSE he does not challenge jurisdiction with the correct paperwork by creating an alternate jurisdiction. He appears to simply lack the knowledge enforce his tactic. He talks a LOT and puts on a “GOOD SHOW”, but if you follow his advice, you will LOSE !!!! (I saw him get blown away in a New Hampshire court case and his “client” ended up losing “BIG TIME”!)

  2. Californian · ·

    For those who are new to all this. You declare yourself a federal employee on the W-4, not the
    W-2. I am sure the W-2 comment above is a typo.
    If you do sign a W-4 or 1040. Preserve your rights. Do something for goodness sakes. Don’t just sign it and give away your rights.
    You should at least sign without prejudice. I have done this and the IRS took 9 months to tell me I owed them 19.00. Usually they take 6 weeks to come for your money. I am sure I peaked their interest with the conditional signing.

%d bloggers like this: