Consent – Why The IRS, Domestic, And Homeland Security Have No Lawful Power


Is Domestic Security a lawful department of the U.S. Government?

The answer to this question lies within the U.S. CODE that gives the Department of Domestic and Homeland Security its power in the first place…

But what gives this CODE its power?

In this article, I will be referencing the U.S. CODE of the government of the UNITED STATES – a private corporation. All CODES referenced are sourced below each reference.

If you still have any doubt that your government is a corporation, see the indisputable proof here: http://thecorporationnation.com/ or just keep reading… For those skeptics and doubting Thomas types, here is some instant gratification showing the ‘UNITED STATES’ non-representative corporate structure:

TITLE 28—JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE

PART VI–PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS

CHAPTER 176–FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE

SUBCHAPTER A–DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS

§ 3002. Definitions

15) ‘‘United States’’ means—

(A) a Federal corporation;

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00003002—-000-.html )


First, let’s look at the most important word in legal code. This powerful and lawful word is the only reason that the majority of our U.S. CODE has any power over us at all…

CONSENT

CONSENT: (v) (law) To acquiesce, agree, approve, assent, to voluntarily comply or yield, to give permission to some act or purpose. Voluntary Acquiescence to the proposal of another; the act or result of reaching an accord; a concurrence of minds; actual willingness that an act or an infringement of an interest shall occur. Consent is an act of reason and deliberation. A person who possesses and exercises sufficient mental capacity to make an intelligent decision demonstrates consent by performing an act recommended by another. Consent assumes a physical power to act and a reflective, determined, and unencumbered exertion of these powers. It is an act unaffected by Fraud, duress, or sometimes even mistake when these factors are not the reason for the consent. Consent is implied in every agreement. (Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/consent

ACQUIESCENCE: Conduct recognizing the existence of a transaction and intended to permit the transaction to be carried into effect; a tacit agreement; consent inferred from silence. Acquiescence relates to inaction during the performance of an act.

If you understand the definition of consent, you have a legal weapon more powerful than any physical weapon you can ever carry. For consent is the very act that gives much of our legal statutes and codes their power… and in turn, our code enforcers (police) power over us.

Consent, for legal purposes, is a verbal or attitudinal contract. If a police officer (CORPORATE CODE enforcement officer) tells you that you must obey a code that is not statutory law, you must voluntarily give that police officer power (consent) by agreeing (voluntary acquiescence) to obey him; for your compliance with his request is strictly voluntary. You must volunteer to follow and obey non-statutory law (CODE).

But as we read above, consent can be “inferred from silence”, or even from “inaction”. Therefore, silence does not constitute a lack of consent. Your unwillingness to acquiesce must be made known in a verbal statement (non-contractual denial of authority). For instance:

I do not consent to an unlawful search and seizure.

I do not give you consent to unlawfully search my vehicle or my person.

I do not consent to a full body scan or a full body pat-down.

I do not consent to your Prima Facie code requiring a permit for free speech, as it is my statutory and constitutional right to express free speech and travel unencumbered while on public property, which overrides the non-statutory code that you have just quoted me.

What is PUBLIC PROPERTY?

Public Property: (n) property owned by the government or one of its agencies, divisions, or entities. Commonly a reference to parks, playgrounds, streets, sidewalks, schools, libraries and other property regularly used by the general public. (See: common property http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/public+property)

Public Property refers to roadways, highways, sidewalks, airports (the entire airport), and any government held or owned building or business that is paid for by tax-payer money. Technically, all government property should be considered public property. After all, why should government have secrets from the people it represents, let alone property that it owns? It only owns property due to its corporate status. Complete transparency should be an integral part of a just and constitutional republic government…

Since the entirety of the airport was built with tax-payer money, and since the airport is a government building, the entire airport is public property. This means that the passageway to and from the entrance to the ticket counter to the bathroom to the gate all falls under one category: Public Property. Because of this, you have the absolute natural and constitutional right to travel on this public property, without permit, license, or any other form of legality. Law trumps legality every time. The only way you can loose this right is if you consent to the non-statutory CODE, which limits your God-given right to travel, and which requires your voluntary acquiescence to give up this right in lieu of a codified permit, license, or contract.

Statutory Law

-vs-

Prima Facie Law

This is not to say that all code is non-Statutory. In fact, of the 50 “TITLES” in UNITED STATES CODE, only 23 of those TITLES have been enacted into positive law; i.e. legal evidence of law (Congressional Statutory Law). These TITLES are as follows:

1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36,37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 46, and 49.

(Source: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/about.html )

Statutory law: Laws, or statutes, enacted by legislatures, such as the New Jersey State Legislature or the United States Congress. (Source: www.judiciary.state.nj.us/njcourts-09.htm)

Statutory law: Law enacted by the legislative branch of government (congress), as distinguished from case law or common law. A statute (i.e. statutory law) is an act of the legislature declaring, commanding or prohibiting something. (Source: www.mnbar.org/mocktrial/2007-08/GLOSSARY%20OF%20LEGAL%20TERMS.doc)

All other TITLES within the federal U.S. CODE (the topic of this writing) are what is called “Prima Facie” evidence of law. Prima facie is not statutory law (not made into law by congress), which means that it is only enforceable via your voluntary consent.

Prima Facie: (Latin) A legal presumption which means on the face of it or at first sight. (Source: http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/P/PrimaFacie.aspx)

Prima Facie: At first view; on first appearance absent other information or evidence — (Source: S. L. Lynch)

Prima Facie: Sufficient to establish a fact or case unless disproved < prima facie proof.  (Source: Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.)

So, now that we have established that more than half of federal U.S. CODE is in fact not statutory law by congressional decree, and is instead a legal presumption which requires voluntary consent, and with an understanding that legal and lawful are two completely different concepts with regards to your consent, lets take a look at the U.S. CODE that covers federal airport security operations: DOMESTIC SECURITY.

The Domestic Security and Homeland Security offices are Federal Executive Agencies (see below), meaning they are Departments created and appointed by the Executive branch of the government (the President). Part of the lawful measures that protect the freedom of the American people against the always evident tyranny of government corruption and absolute power is our system of checks and balances. Because of these checks and balances, any act of the president of the UNITED STATES (Executive Branch) alone or through any Executive office or officer he appoints does not have power over the Free People of America. In other words, the president is not a dictator, and cannot act as one through his appointed officers without congressional authority. This is the greatest of checks and balances…

TITLE 5—GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES  (TITLE 5 is Statutory Law)

PART I–THE AGENCIES GENERALLY

§ 103. Government corporation

For the purpose of this title—

(1) ‘‘Government corporation’’ means a corporation owned or controlled by the Government of the United States;

(2) “Government controlled corporation” does not include a corporation owned by the Government of the United States.

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00000103—-000-.html )

§ 105. Executive agency

For the purpose of this title—

‘‘Executive agency’’ means an Executive department, a Government corporation (see above), and an independent establishment.

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00000105—-000-.html )

§ 301. Departmental regulations

The head of an Executive department or military department may prescribe regulations for the government of his department, the conduct of its employees, the distribution and performance of its business, and the custody, use, and preservation of its records, papers, and property. This section does not authorize withholding information from the public or limiting the availability of records to the public.

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00000301—-000-.html )

TITLE 5

First, we must note that TITLE 5 is indeed Statutory Law.

SECTION 103 (above) confirms to us that “Executive Agencies”, regardless of their TITLES, are in fact CORPORATIONS – and in paragraph (2), that the federal government does indeed “control” corporations and also “owns” corporations.

SECTION 105 (above) then confirms that “Executive agencies” are the same as and are defined as “Executive Departments”, which are in fact “Government Corporations”.

SECTION 301 (above) then tells us what these “Executive Departments” (Government Corporations) have authority to do by this Statutory Law (as defined in TITLE 5 of U.S. CODE). And so we can see that these Presidential appointed “Executive Departments” only have the authority by congress to make regulations within the bounds of the Presidents’ own appointed Executive Agency, and not outside of said Executive Department, and definitely not for or over the free American people without their consent. “Executive Departments” and their appointed officials have no authority over the free people granted from within this TITLE (5), and only have been granted power over the “employees” within that Executive Department.

In other words, the law (CODE) states that the head of an Executive Agency or Executive Department can only make regulations for and within his own agency, not for and within the Free People of America.

And this is where CONSENT comes in to play. For it is simply your consent that gives these codified non-statutory presumed laws and the code-enforcement officers who enforce them authority over you. Without your consent, they are literally powerless. They have no authority without your consent.

Executive DOMESTIC SECURITY Department

DOMESTIC SECURITY and most of its presumed authority and legality, and therefore its power, is in TITLE 6. Title 6 is not one of the 23 TITLES of U.S. CODE enacted into “Positive” or Statutory Law. So, nothing in TITLE 6 is in fact statutory law, and therefore it requires voluntary compliance through your consent. Also, in TITLE 6, you’ll find much of the regulation and power related to “HOMELAND SECURITY”.

TITLE 6—DOMESTIC SECURITY (remember, TITLE 6 is not Statutory Law)

CHAPTER 4–TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

SUBCHAPTER I–TRANSPORTATION SECURITY PLANNING AND INFORMATION SHARING –

Reference to: EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 13416. STRENGTHENING SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY -George W Bush

      Ex. Ord. No. 13416, Dec. 5, 2006, 71 F.R. 71033

§ 1101(c) ‘‘security guideline’’ means any security-related guidance that the Secretary recommends, for implementation on a voluntary basis, to enhance the security of surface transportation

(Source: http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/06C4.txt )

Note: An Executive Order is an order that is not approved by Congress. It is an act solely of and by the President of the Corporation of the UNITED STATES that is not Staturtory Law nor constitutional. Since we have already established that the President is not a Dictator, these Executive Orders and Presidential Directives only apply to the Executive branch of the corporate Federal government and departments within, and only have authority over the Free People with their (your) consent!

Here in black and white it is written in U.S. CODE that the TSA’s security-related guidance is in fact voluntary, meaning its power derives from your consent to give up your constitutional rights and allow this Executive Department to have the power to violate your God-given and 4rth amendment rights.

TITLE 6—

CHAPTER 1–HOMELAND SECURITY ORGANIZATION (not statutory law)

SUBCHAPTER 1 – DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

§ 111 Executive department; mission

(a) Establishment
There is established a Department of Homeland Security, as an executive department of the United States within the meaning of title 5.

§ 112. Secretary; functions

(a) Secretary

(1) In general; There is a Secretary of Homeland Security, appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

(2) Head of Department – The Secretary is the head of the Department and shall have direction, authority, and control over it.

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode06/usc_sec_06_00000112—-000-.html )

Section 112 states that the Department of Homeland Security is an Executive Department of the United States, as defined in TITLE 5. This means that the Department of Homeland Security is a Government Corporation, appointed by the President, who is not a dictator, and therefore this Executive Department requires consent by the Free People to have power and authority over those people. The Department of Homeland Security is not constitutionally lawful, as it is not consented to and made Statutory by congress.

Since the Secretary of Homeland Security is appointed by the President (with only the Senates’ consent), and indeed not the consent and approval of the Congress, and since this appointment is in TITLE 6 which is not Statutory Law, this tells us that there is no Congressional power behind the Secretary of Homeland Security over the actual Free People of America. In fact, the “Executive Departments” known as Domestic and Homeland Security has no authority over anyone outside of their own agency and employees. Remember… Washington D.C. (the Federal Government) is a 10 mile patch of land in the District of Columbia, and it is not located in and is not a part of the united states of America. It is a separate entity. A corporation. A country within a country.

To put this into perspective… let’s look at another Executive appointed office within the Executive branch of government. The President of the corporation of the UNITED STATES has appointed an executive department for the care of current corporate President Obama’s dog (the “first dog”). This department has the job of taking care of and grooming this dog, and is paid an over $100,000 salary plus $45,000 in benefits. But that is where his and his Executive appointed Departments’ power ends. He does not have the power to take care of your dog, and he certainly doesn’t have the power to force you or your dog to do anything you don’t want to do. But then, he might ask you or even tell you forcibly that he is going to feed, brush, and groom your dog! And if you wanted him to, all you’d have to do is to give Him and his “Executive Department” permission (consent) to do so, be it by verbal permission or lack of declaration of non-consent (inaction). Likewise, the Executive Departments of Domestic Security and of Homeland Security have no power to force you to do anything, especially to grope and hand-rape you and your children or to force you to walk through radiation expelling DNA destroying cancer causing devices… unless you give them permission (consent).

Remember, the President is not a Dictator due to governments checks and balances! And because of this, the President cannot dictate power over the Free People through any appointed office or political appointee. He is only in charge of the federal government as President of the CORPORATION. There are only two persons in the Executive Branch of government who have the peoples authority over the Executive Branch, but not over the people themselves: The President and the Vice President of U.S. INC. Every other officer, office, department, military branch (army, navy, air force, marines, coast guard, national guard etc…), and any other political appointment by the President has no authority over you, a free and natural man or woman – without your consent.

I cannot stress this enough. Your consent is the only thing that gives these bullies any power. This single word is the most powerful weapon in your arsenal against mislaid tyranny. It is a shield against the presumption of law, known as legality, or Prima Facie law.

The DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE 49—TRANSPORTATION     (TITLE 49 is Statutory Law)

SUBTITLE I–DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

§ 102. Department of Transportation

(a) The Department of Transportation is an executive department of the United States Government at the seat of Government.

(b) The head of the Department is the Secretary of Transportation. The Secretary is appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

…….Note: Also very interesting in this section…….

…….An office to mitigate the effects of Climate Change (Chemtrails?)…….

(g) Office of Climate Change and Environment.—

(1) Establishment.— There is established in the Department an Office of Climate Change and Environment to plan, coordinate, and implement—
(A) department-wide research, strategies, and actions under the Department’s statutory authority to reduce transportation-related energy use and mitigate the effects of climate change; and
(B) department-wide research strategies and actions to address the impacts of climate change on transportation systems and infrastructure.
(2) Clearinghouse.— The Office shall establish a clearinghouse of solutions, including cost-effective congestion reduction approaches, to reduce air pollution and transportation-related energy use and mitigate the effects of climate change.
(h) The Department shall have a seal that shall be judicially recognized.

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode49/usc_sec_49_00000102—-000-.html )

TITLE 49—TRANSPORTATION

SUBTITLE VII–AVIATION PROGRAMS

§ 40103. Sovereignty and use of airspace

(2) A citizen of the United States has a public

right of transit through the navigable airspace.

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode49/usc_sec_49_00040103—-000-.html )

TITLE 49 is in fact Statutory Law by order of Congress, according to the list of U.S. CODES that are law above.

SECTION 102 states plainly that the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION is in fact an “Executive Department” – meaning it is a corporation that was appointed by the Executive Branch. And in Paragraph (B) it states that the Secretary of Transportation is an Executive (Presidential) appointed office with only the consent of the Senate, not of the congress. This makes the office of Secretary of Transportation Executive non-Statutory Law, and assigns no power over the Free People to this office or its Secretary.

SECTION 40103 in SUBTITLE 7 states that it is Statutory Law that transit through the “navigational airspace” is in fact a right, and not a privilege. This is important, because it reinforces the natural and constitutional right to travel freely by the American people, without permission, permit or regulation, throughout the land (and airspace). This TITLE is actually beneficial to the Free People, as this CODE recognizes the Free Peoples’ ability to travel as a right, not a privilege, and makes that a law – which severely cripples the “States” authority over you!

What is a RIGHT?

Public Right (as quoted in SECTION 40103): (n.) a right created by the legislature that may be exercised against the government. (Source: http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/public-right.html)

Right: (n.)  – 1) an entitlement to something, whether to concepts like justice and due process, or to ownership of property or some interest in property, real or personal. These rights include various freedoms, protection against interference with enjoyment of life and property, civil rights enjoyed by citizens such as voting and access to the courts, natural rights accepted by civilized societies, human rights to protect people throughout the world from terror, torture, barbaric practices and deprivation of civil rights and profit from their labor, and such American constitutional guarantees as the right to freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition.

2) (adj.) just, fair, correct.

Right: In an abstract sense, justice, ethical correctness, or harmony with the rules of law or the principles of morals. In a concrete legal sense, a power, privilege, demand, or claim possessed by a particular person by virtue of law… In Constitutional Law, rights are classified as natural, civil, and political. Natural rights are those that are believed to grow out of the nature of the individual human being and depend on her personality, such as the rights to life, liberty, privacy, and the pursuit of happiness. (Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Right)

So in general, a right can never be restricted. If it is restricted by your consent to a contract, legality, etc… then it is no longer a RIGHT, but a PRIVILEGE granted by government (the State). Again, CONSENT must be given to turn a right into a privilege, through verbal contract or a lack of verbal non-consent, or through a written contract (permit, license, etc…) which you sign, giving up your rights for the privilege to do something, like traveling freely in a car as a natural right -vs- driving a car with a license, which is a contractual permission to drive from the state and permission (consent) by you to be punished for not obeying their rules under contractual law.

The “STATE” and the “UNITED STATES”

-vs-

The Republic and the 50 states united

It is important to understand what the corporate U.S. CODE defines as “the State”, and how that relates to the 50 states that form the Republic of the united states of America.

You must remember that U.S. CODE is the code writen for the corporation that is UNITED STATES INC. It is the system of law set up for the federal corporation to follow. This corporate structure was created to build a legal bridge over the lawful constitution for the united states of America, whereas the corporation of the same name, UNITED STATES INC, can operate outside of that constitution. And they created the corporate equivalent of the constitution through such tools as U.S.CODE.

Read the following very carefully…

TITLE 28—JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE

PART VI–PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS

CHAPTER 176–FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE

SUBCHAPTER A–DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS

§ 3002. Definitions

(14) ‘‘State’’ means any of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, or any territory or possession of the United States.

(15) “United States” means—

(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or

(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00003002—-000-.html )

TITLE 4–FLAG AND SEAL, SEAT OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE STATES

CHAPTER 4–THE STATES

Sec. 110. Same; definitions

(a) The term “person” shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 3797 of title 26.

(d) The term “State” includes any Territory or possession of the United States.

(e) The term “Federal area” means any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United States or any department, establishment, or agency, of the United States; and any Federal area, or any part thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to be a Federal area located within such State.

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode04/usc_sec_04_00000110—-000-.html )


Once again, the U.S. CODE states irrevocably that the term “United States” is defined as a Corporation – In this case a “Federal Corporation”. This Federal Corporation was created strategically, to build a legal bridge over and bypass the real lawful declaration of independence and the constitution. This is not to say that the original constitution for the united states of America is not still in effect, but it is to say that as consenting citizens of the UNITED STATES as a corporation, we are bound by the corporation of the UNITED STATES and by its corporate rules, codes, legalities, and therefore its punishments, taxes, and fines as long as we consent and continuously enter into voluntary acquiescence of IT’S contracts, licenses, permits, and other contractually binding documents via our social security numbers (which are our livestock informational ownership ID’s)…

The word “State” is being defined here as anything other that the actual geographical land and Free People of the united states of America, and is being defined as all territory and PROPERTY of the corporation of the UNITED STATES. Here the “States” are not any of the 50 states of the constitutional republic. “States” in this CODE refers to something which belongs as property (a corporate term) to the UNITED STATES INC, the corporation. No state of the union is owned by the federal government according to the constitution, and no part of any of the 50 States is owned by the United States, for that would be against the precepts of the Constitution and the very foundation of the republic and the intentions of and enumerated powers of the federal government.

Paragraph (a) states that a “person” is defined elsewhere. After following the breadcrumb trail, I finally arrived here:

TITLE 26–INTERNAL REVENUE CODE

SUBTITLE F–PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION

CHAPTER 79–DEFINITIONS

§ 7701. Definitions

(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—

(1) Person

The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.
(14) Taxpayer

The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.

TITLE 26–INTERNAL REVENUE CODE

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26.html )

Wow! This is the big one!!!

TITLE 26, which holds the INTERNAL REVENUE CODE that is used by the Internal Revenue Service as the basis to tax, steal, imprison, subjugate, and ruin the lives of many Americans… IS NOT STATUTORY LAW. IT REQUIRES CONSENT!

This means that the entire basis for the Income Tax levied on the people of America is strictly voluntary! You enter into an agreement with the IRS tax forms you fill out.

If  the word “taxpayer” as defined above in paragraph (14) is any “person” as defined above in paragraph (1) that is “subject to any internal revenue tax”, and if the U.S. CODE requires consent for the so defined “person” to be subject to any authority presented by the IRS and it’s non-Statutory, Prima Facie INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, then no individual Free Man or Woman in America is required to pay and income tax on their wages earned, unless they consent to doing so by signing the corporate IRS and IRC paperwork that binds them to the tax.

This is not the case with individual “persons” who own corporations, for the corporation is an artificial person, which is not a Free Man or Woman, given permission to exist by the U.S.CODE, and must obey these CODES as required in the INTERNAL REVENUE CODE listed above. It is not the individual “person” that owes the tax, but is instead the corporation for which that real “person” owns.

The question is, can that individual “person” be held responsible for paying Income Taxes to the IRS for their Corporation out of their own income from said Corporation. Is this not just a paycheck similar to every other “person’s” income, written by a separate entity called a corporation – an artificial person?

This is an interesting paradox… Can you be held accountable for your corporation’s debt to the IRS if the corporation is not you, a Free Man or Woman, but indeed a separate (artificial) “State”-created person altogether?

TITLE 5–GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES

PART I–THE AGENCIES GENERALLY

§ 103. Government corporation – For the purpose of this title—

(1) ‘‘Government corporation’’ means a corporation owned or controlled by the Government of the United States

(Sourced above)

TITLE 31—MONEY AND FINANCE

SUBTITLE I–GENERAL

§ 103. United States – In this title, ‘‘United States’’, when used in a geographic sense, means the States of the United States and the District of Columbia.

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode31/usc_sec_31_00000103—-000-.html )

TITLE 5, repeated here from above, once again shows that the United States, for which TITLE 28 defines as a Federal Corporation, now helps to define what the word “State” means in this U.S. CODE. TITLE 5 helps to define the word “State” as a Government Corporation.

TITLE 31 is statutory Law. This TITLE declares that the “United States” are the 50 “States” (government corporations) of this “Federal Corporation”.


TITLE 18–CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE     (Statutory Law)

PART I–CRIMES

CHAPTER 109–SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

Sec. 2236. Searches without warrant

Whoever, being an officer, agent, or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, engaged in the enforcement of any law of the United States, searches any private dwelling used and occupied as such dwelling without a warrant directing such search, or maliciously and without reasonable cause searches any other building or property without a search warrant, shall be fined under this title for a first offense; and, for a subsequent offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

This section shall not apply to any person–

(a) serving a warrant of arrest; or

(b) arresting or attempting to arrest a person committing or attempting to commit an offense in his presence, or who has committed or is suspected on reasonable grounds of having committed a felony; or

(c) making a search at the request or invitation or with the consent of the occupant of the premises.

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002236—-000-.html )

TITLE 18 is Statutory Law. Simply stated, paragraph (c) tells us that we have no recourse against the Agency Agent (TSA, Policeman, etc.) if we give our consent to be searched, meaning they can touch us anywhere and however the want if we consent to a search, and the fact that you do not deny your consent means that you are indeed granting consent to search and seizure, by which consent eliminates this protective CODE – as stated above in paragraph (c): “This section shall not apply to any person–making a search at the request or invitation or with the consent of the occupant of the premises.” This cancels this statute in court for use as in your defense, because your consent relieved any protective aspect of this statutory law. They could rape you because you gave consent, and this Statutory Law (CODE) would stop a courts’ ruling of rape, calling that rape or molestation a “consensual search”. VERY IMPORTANT!!!

By denying consent to be searched and/or to have your property seized by this Government Corporation/Executive Department, IT has no right or authority to interact with you, detain you, or block your way to freely travel without reasonable proof of a commitment of a felony, or in order to serve a warrant for your arrest (and a warrant would take a long time to acquire from a court).

Recap

Nobody has the right to see or check your plane ticket or ID but the airline in which you are doing business with. Only an airline representative can request your ticket. Unless the TSA and police have probable cause to detain you, you are not bound by these corporate code enforcement officers if you do not consent and acquiesce to their presumed authority. Consent and non-consent must be verbally stated, as inaction and silence can be considered as consent. Do not be intimidated by these power-hungry thugs in Federal Corporation U.S. INC  uniforms. Remember, their power is delegated by Statutory Law only to the 10 mile non united states of America piece of land called Washington D.C, and only within their own federal department – not over you as a Free and Sovereign man or woman. Stand your ground. Fear and intimidation are the only power they have. Without it, and without your consent, they are powerless – but only if you so declare.

If these Executive appointed federal government corporate workers threaten or try to intimidate you by standing in your way or telling or asking you to wait for a supervisor, do not comply. Simply state that you are a Sovereign man or woman, that you do not consent, that you do not give that federal employee any authority over you or your children (or property), and that they may not impede your God-given and constitutional right to travel nor violate any of your natural rights. Then politely ask if you are being detained, and am I free to be on my way.

You may also let the federal corporate employee know that you intend to sue them and their department head’s bond at a certain dollar amount ($100 per minute, for example) if they interfere with your free right to travel on public property by contractually and forcibly detaining you (by verbally claiming authority to halt your free travel despite your non-consent to their authority to do so).

Film this process. A video camera is your best defense and offense, and these thugs do not like being filmed. Video footage of this exchange is your record and evidence of your lack of consent in a court of law.

If they still intimidate you, follow up with a taste of their own medicine… State that you are warning them that anything that you say and do to me or my family can and will be used against you in a Court of Law, a Common Law Court, and as evidence for a Grand Jury.

And most important, do not answer any questions posed to you by these Federal Employees. You have the right to remain silent! Remember, they have no authority or rule of law on their side to interact or ask you anything without your consent. Answering their questions could be construed by them and by a corporate judge in a court of law as consent.

And remember, your local police and Airport Police work for the municipal corporation that is acting as a government in your city or county. They are corporations as well, making them corporate police or code enforcers. They need your consent too. They cannot detain you or restrict your movement without violating the warning you just gave them. You are a free traveler. You do not consent to their questions or their unlawful interference with your freedom of travel in a public place. Again, you are not required to answer their questions as you have the right to remain silent. Your answers can be misconstrued as consent to their authority over you, and you must verbally acknowledge that you do not consent (the only reason to break your silence).

Be polite. Never become confrontational, rude, or arrogant. A confident attitude mixed with a polite and straight-forward attitude is a winner every time. Do not get tricked into a “friendly conversation” or banter with a corporate code enforcement thug. It will only lead to frustration, argument, and possible unwitting consent. These guys are trained to trip up people like you – free people claiming their rights above corporate tyranny.

If you do not let the situation escalate, and instead control the conversation by simply not consenting to have a conversation or answer any questions, you are free to go by law and Statutory Law.

Warning: they may not step out of your way. They may stand in front of you and not say anything or that you are free to go to intimidate you further. They will tell you, however, if you are being detained. It is a chess game. If they step aside or if they do not, you should just start walking to your destination. Their consent to your rights is their inaction to detain you.

Remember, the courts are private corporations, often owned outright by the very judges who rule the court, and rent that court to the corporate government municipality unlawfully. These “judges” are corporate attorneys in fancy black robes, who work for the corporate government of the United States, and will always rule in favor of the “city”, “county”, or “state” corporation he works for. An attorney will never represent you in court. An attorney is there to ensure the continuity of court procedure, and by taking an attorney as representation for yourself in court, you have just contractually admitted to the corporate court that you are unfit and too mentally unstable to represent yourself in court. You are then a ward of the court. This is consent of the judicial system, which again is part of the corporation. Every judge works for the United States Corporation, and therefore his first interest is always to protect the corporate interest, to not set precedent that could be beneficial to Sovereignty and freedom, and is never concerned with justice for the people including yourself.

FEMA Camps, Oh My!

Now, some of you may be thinking, after years of fear and conditioning, that Homeland Security might throw you into a FEMA camp for such disregard of corporate legality and authority over your freedom. But guess what? FEMA is in TITLE 6, is an Executive Department, is not Statutory Law, and requires your consent of authority!

TITLE 6–DOMESTIC SECURITY  (TITLE 6 is not Statutory Law)

CHAPTER 1–HOMELAND SECURITY ORGANIZATION

SUBCHAPTER V–NATIONAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

§ 313. Federal Emergency Management Agency
(a) In general

There is in the Department the Federal Emergency Management Agency, headed by an Administrator.

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode06/usc_sec_06_00000313—-000-.html )

Constitutional Corporate Statutory Law?

Oxymoron?

Paradox?

One question remains… Even though some of these U.S. CODES exist in the Congressional Statutory realm of Law, can a corporation – a private for-profit non-representative corporation – enact any law over the Free and Sovereign people of the republic of the united states of America without their consent?

Constitutionally speaking… No.

The powers of the Federal Government are specifically enumerated in the constitution.

More importantly, nowhere does it mention that a vile corporation should be given power to take the place of this constitutionally created representative federal government and then enact laws and CODES which break free of these enumerated powers. Therefore, if we examine the source of this U.S. CODE, no office in the Federal Government can have lawful power over the people unless it is consented to by the Free People, simply because the whole of the private Corporation known today as the Federal Government of the UNITED STATES is not a constitutional entity. Thus even the Statutory Laws based on U.S. CODE are not constitutional, and therefore require our consent as Free People. No corporation can be government, nor can a private corporation nor their corporate code-enforcement police force have power over the people without our contractual consent.

Learn the Law!

For more information, and for much of the source of this info (with my gratitude), please visit this website: ( https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1NKPsi1ofhiMmavI5hi3z_zYOEeWM9b4JSiSfeL64pd0 ) and his new YouTube Channel: (http://www.youtube.com/user/donotconsent83) which will be updated periodically with more of this type of information.

Also, you’ll find that many Federal Executive Departments in fact have no authority except by your consent if you start on your own journey of researching U.S.CODE. Health and Human Services, Child Protective Services, Terrorism Protection, Military, and many more unconstitutional Executive corporate structures that have no Statutory Law to back up their powers.

To access and search the corporate U.S.CODE, go here: ( http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/index.html ) and here: ( http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ )

Yours in freedom and constitutional Sovereign liberty,

.

Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

 

Leave a comment

26 Comments

  1. Todd

     /  January 27, 2011

    You say that consent is everything, that without our consent the code enforcers-police- are powerless over us. Would pulling your vehicle over, when the police are behind you with their lights and sirens on, be giving consent?

    Reply
    • Good question. Most would say to peaceably cooperate and pull over. After all, how can you verbalize your non-consent unless you pull over and do so. The golden rule is to not talk to the cops, never consent to search or seizure, lock your doors, crack your window only enough to allow an exchange of paperwork, and most importantly…

      If you are presented a citation, read and cross out any information you don’t agree with, and sign your name followed by the phrase “ALL RIGHTS RESERVED”. This makes the contract only valid with your consent, and retractable.

      Also, when and if a police officer reads you your “miranda rights”, never say that you “understand” your rights as the officer has read them. Never say that you understand anything, as anything you say will be used against you. Period. Never answer any question like, “Do you know how fast you were going?”. This is an admission of guilt!!!!!

      The legal term “understand” is a dangerous word. It means you stand-under the authority of the police officer or judge, and that means you consent to that authority. Words are the killer of rights, and these guys know how to make you say them and agree (consent) to them.

      The best answer is to say “I do not consent to this line of questioning, and will not give up any rights, and reserve all rights, thank you.”

      I’ll be writing more about this later.

      But in any court proceeding, I recomend constantly asserting that you do not consent to the proceedings, and keep repeating it, especially at the end of the trial when sentencing happens. Never plea, for this is an admission of guilt and a giving up of your rights.

      Much study is required for this.

      -Clint-

      Reply
  2. Todd

     /  January 27, 2011

    Wow. Thanks for the great information. I have two more questions.

    (1.) About the I.R.S. and contracts. You said that paying income tax is voluntary. That one volunteers when they fill out the tax forms. So, how does one unvolunteer? If you filled out IRS forms for past jobs are they still valid? In other words is your consent given for future jobs because of your past actions? How does one remedy any of this without having to take it to court, and having to consent to their authority or jurisdiction?

    (2.) Drivers License. Once you have consented to getting a drivers license, can it be undone?

    Reply
    • This is not in any way legal advice, and I state that for the record for all future and past responses.

      A W2 or W4 is only a contract for the year in which it has in its title/header, as far as I know.

      If you have money being taken out of your check, it’s pretty hard to be a non-filer!

      As I understand it, the only “persons” required to pay this tax are federal “employees” who work for and within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government (municipal corporation), Washington D.C and Federal outposts within the U.S. This is because the prima facie law or presumed law that comes out of the executive department called the IRS requires the consent of the governed for all “citizens”. But employees of the Fed must pay the tax.

      A driver’s license can be rescinded, though I haven’t yet researched this topic. It also is not valid at the point it expires, I would assume.

      -Clint-

      Reply
  3. The trouble is, it is enough for them to pretend to have your consent. You needn’t actually agree, you’ve been agreed for long ago. It’s all in your best interest.

    There are a number of people in federal prison for failure to file their 1040s. Obviously, their failure to act is proof of their implied consent to be taxed.

    It’s all illusion. The design is to distract the curious long enough that they forget the question. By the time they figure it out it’s too late. Anyway, what can one person do against the almighty?

    Although it is frustrating to be legally prohibited from lawfully living, we cannot function in this society without submitting to a few of their codes. They might argue you can’t pick and choose your codes and if you’re in for one you’re in for them all. One sin makes you a sinner or a citizen.

    It is our government’s position that we consent to their rules by breathing. Disagreeing with their position will result in disciplinary action. Period.

    I like the idea of being a sovereign person, but I don’t see it working as any kind of legal defense. Not that there is any legal defense against tyranny.

    Don’t let me stop you, though. Pointing out the absurdity of our situation is greatly needed. Most sheeple are still sheepwalking. Keep up the fight for sanity.

    OB: Mathematically Perfected Economy

    Reply
  4. Joseph P Cronin

     /  June 1, 2011

    Thanks very much for your efforts ; I’m new at this sovereignty business and every bit of new knowledge halps . Thanks again . Joe

    Reply
    • Absolutely. Just make sure you spend a lot of time researching, as you can never know enough. The journey is the learning process, and the learning process never ends.

      -Clint-

      Reply
  5. lewis mohr

     /  August 6, 2011

    pls advise the readers that all you have written is true. And the trick questions from a thug with a gun or a creep with a badge used for gaining/granting consent are always these two: What is your name?….. thugs and creeps only hear the all caps deceptive similar corporate slave name form of your Christian appellation that is found on your driver license that you did not need to obtain, and your passport that is the international ID for slaves to travel to other countries who have slaves and said debtor nations belong to the United Nations grand council of debtor nation plantation slave owners. and 2a. What is your address?….the address belongs to the plantation owner in “this state” and if you have an address you must be a plantation slave subject to the benefit of being ordered around by thugs with guns or creeps with badges. and 2b. a variation question of 2a is: where do you live? trying to trick you into giving them the government plantation address for the plantation house that has the deceptive similar all caps plantation slave name listed as the tenant on the tax bill, because a free man does not owe rent or tax to any other sovereign, but a plantation “resident” does owe the tax rent on the house his sovereign allows the slave to be a debtor in possession. Every man is presumed to know the law. You grant consent by giving your slave all caps name and giving a plantation resident address. End of story. Resisting after giving a name or an address will get you ded or severely injured. please be very careful when dealing with the thugs and creeps. They are insane, they are the spawn of satan, and they are very well trained to seize on the first smallest sign of consent. Best course of action is to always come to heel like a good contrite slave, like a spy for Jesus, and make plans to eliminate all foreign and domestic enemies of the united states of America when comes the time. L -o-

    Reply
  6. Zach

     /  August 29, 2011

    Regarding refusing consent to TSA officers… have you ever done this, or known anyone who has? I will be traveling in a couple of weeks and would love to exercise my rights. Trouble is, I’m new to this and am not generally a defiant person. Not trying to say that exercising my rights is being defiant, but it will certainly be construed that way. My concern is that they WILL detain me, either out of their own ignorance or for their own amusement. First, I don’t want to miss my vacation, and second I’m not sure I have the knowledge yet to adequately defend myself in court, so I would like to get as much reassurance as I can that the non-consent theory will actually hold up.

    Thanks!

    Reply
    • There are several who have, actually. And to be honest, the majority are detained and some go to jail. This is not to say that they “deserve” to be jailed or that there were any actual charges placed against them. Some are in court suing the shit out of the city. Some are planning their next move.

      But there are also some who make it thru. While I believe that everybody should not consent, I know very few will. And this is why we are all slaves, and I am going to somehow get used to the fact that that is true. When vacation is more important than rights…

      Those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither, as Ben Franklin would say.

      I can smell defeat, and am not even sure why I am doing this anymore.

      Reply
      • franklin

         /  July 14, 2012

        I just posted below a 49USC citation for the definition of screening at TSA checkpoints in an airport. I refused the x-ray, telling the youngster who directed me to the machine that he had no authority to give such an order. Then I was told I would have to have a full-body pat down. The third choice I was given was that I could leave the airport. When the youngster told me what he was going to do in the pat down, i handed him a copy of the definition of screening, that if he touched me he was acting in his personal capacity and would need sufficient funds to hire a lawyer if I sued him for assault and battery. Several other agents came over. I put them on notice that they were all acting in a personal capacity, Two supervisors came over and I told them that they were acting in a personal capacity AND conspiring with the other agents to commit assault and battery on my person and to interfere in my contract with the airline. The young man who was to do the pat down said he was not comfortable doing it after what he heard and refused to do it. The police were called. The cop said I would have to leave the airport if I did not submit to the pat down. I asked what law he would be upholding because the only authority for this entire episode came from the youngster who told me to go thru the x-ray machine. And I gave him a copy of the definition of screening. I maintained that I had been screened by walking through the metal detector just like the majority of the other people had done. And my luggage (cargo) had been x-rayed. Was I free to proceed on my way or could he articulate a legal reason why I was being detained. If there was no reason to detain me other than I did not consent to the youngster telling me to get x-rayed without any legal authority, then I would like to be on my way. They offered me a private pat down. I did not consent. I said that would not make it legal.They brought me a chair, conferred for a few minutes, then told me I was “good to go” to my gate.

        I think it was the fact that there was not one statutory word to cover them for their actions and the threat of a personal lawsuit under 42USC 1983 that made them pause.

        I can’t say this would work at all times and in all airports because “standard procedure” is whatever each individual agent decides it is, and some of those people are seriously ignorant, some have criminal personalities (and records as it turns out), and some are just perverts.

        But, knowing their law, and pushing it in their face (in nice but firm tones) is your best shot at not consenting and winning the contest.

        Reply
  7. louie

     /  January 11, 2012

    great article and very well presented! we do all volunteer to be part of the system because we did not know any better at the time and nailing down the historical facts is the hard part of all this. your grunt work is very well appreciated amongst the ones that can read and adding to the knowledge base of others will eventually pay off for you. hopefully in a free constitutional government sort of way and not as much financially but enough to keep you writing the truth as you see it. thanks again.

    Reply
  8. Anonymous

     /  January 20, 2012

    I, also, am concerned about providing legal documents(license, registration, proof of insurance), or my legal name that the state has. I mean, if the state has my name and I am in the system, wouldn’t I be giving consent just by the fact that my parents registered my birth and applied for a SSN for me? Please, help me understand this situation more?

    Reply
    • A contract of any kind is only lawful with consent/acquiescence, with full understanding and comprehension, with full agreement, and of course with your signature.

      Reply
      • Anonymous

         /  January 25, 2012

        Okay, thanks. You learn something new everyday. I’m always open to new books or articles, especially, on politics, laws, metaphysics, and basic, societal advancement. If you have any recommendations, please, let me know.

        Reply
  9. Reynold

     /  March 23, 2012

    We all need to rescind our SSN’s this is how we were all entered into their system and we had no control over it! All our parents sold us out unknowing. I’m working on my way out soon and would gladly share my experience.

    Reply
  10. franklin

     /  July 14, 2012

    The TSA has no statutory authority in 49 USC 44901(g)(5) to touch a passenger or to x-ray them. The legal definition of screening applies only to CARGO: Screening defined. In this subsection the term “screening” means a physical examination or non-intrusive methods of assessing whether cargo poses a threat to transportation security. Methods of screening include x-ray systems, explosives detection systems, explosives trace detection, explosives detection canine teams certified by the TSA, or a physical search together with manifest verification. The Administrator may approve additional methods to ensure that the cargo does not pose a threat to transportation security and to assist in meeting the requirements of this subsection. Such additional cargo screening meteods shall not include solely performing a review of information about the contents of cargo or verifying the identity of a shiper of the cargo that is not performed in conjunction with other security methods authorized under this subsection, including whether a known shipper is registered in the known shipper database. Such additional cargo screening methods may include a program to certify the security methods used by shippers pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) and alternative screening methods pursuant to exemptions referred to in subsection (b) of section 1602 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007.

    TSA agents act in their personal capacity when they touch or order someone to be x-rayed and they tortiously interfere in the obligations of a contract between passenger and airline when they decide a person may not fly..

    Reply
  11. Following a crackdown by police on Occupy Wall Street protesters around the nation, Oakland, California, mayor Jean Quan mentioned during an interview with the BBC that she was on a conference call with leaders of 18 US cities shortly before a wave of raids broke up Occupy Wall Street encampments across the country. It was later discovered that the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and other federal police agencies had coordinated the often violent response to the protests.

    Reply
  12. Absolutly wonderful blog, so much to take in, mind blown, Question when it comes to the 2nd amendment of the Bill of Rights, traveling across country what would your advice be, and please send me more info of becoming a true sovereign, thank you for opening my eyes.

    Reply
  1. Militant Libertarian » Consent – Why The IRS, Domestic, And Homeland Security Have No Lawful Power
  2. FreeWestRadio.com » Blog Archive » Consent – Why The IRS, Domestic, And Homeland Security Have No Lawful Power
  3. The United States: A Corporation « REALITY BLOG
  4. Militant Libertarian » The United States: A Corporation
  5. FreeWestRadio.com » Blog Archive » The United States: A Corporation
  6. Show Me The Law! « REALITY BLOG

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: