Consent of the Governed

consent 1) n. a voluntary agreement to another’s proposition. 2) v. to voluntarily agree to an act or proposal of another, which may range from contracts to sexual relations. Read more. “All governments must maintain power through consent, not coercion.” Barack Obama, January 2011 A cover letter, dated in Philadelphia, July 6, 1776, was attached to the Declaration of Independence, as it was sent to the British authorities, wherein John Hancock states:

“Gentlemen, Altho it is not possible to forsee the consequences of human actions, yet it is nevertheless a duty we owe ourselves and posterity in all our public councils to decide in the best manner we are able and to trust the event to That Being who governs both causes and events, so as to bring about his own determinations.

Impressed with this sentiment, and at the same time fully convinced that our affairs will take a more favorable turn, The Congress have judged it necessary to dissolve all connection between Great Britain and the American Colonies, and to declare them free and independent States as you will perceive by the enclosed Declaration, which I am directed to transmit to you.”

So began the journey of the thirteen former British Colonies toward a lasting union of Independent Sovereign States. In truth the journey had begun with the first permanent settlement of European emigrant to these shores, as the vast reaches of this continent and the vicissitudes of life in settings markedly different from those of Europe shaped an entirely new spirit, a new mentality, morality and ethic, opposed to tyranny of any variety, secular or ecclesiastic. Read more at Barefoot’s World.

Read the rough draft of the Declaration of Independence here.

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

In the America Republic, the people are sovereign (sovran), and all governmental activity exists by the consent of the governed. Barack Obama admitted as much in January 2011.

You have unalienable Rights. If anyone, including judges, attorneys, police and magistrates, etc., violates your Rights, you can bring an action against them, people to people, sui juris, for negligence aka a breach of duty of care. This is a tort. The 7th amendment to the constitution guarantees the Right of the people to bring a suit at common law, as a free and sovereign flesh and blood man or woman rather than as a U.S. Person.

Check out these documents re: a Suit at Common Law. Watch these videos. They are pretty good for a general background in tort law.

Check out this from The Federal Mafia:

1. Party in interest may become liable for fraud by mere silent acquiescence and partaking of benefits of fraud. Bransom v. Standard Hardware, Inc., 874 S.W.2d 919 (1994).

  2. When circumstances impose duty to speak and one deliberately remains silent, silence is equivalent to false representation. Fisher Controls International, Inc. V. Gibbons, 911 S.W. 2d 135 (1995).

  3. U.S.A. V. Altman, Nos. 94- 1108- 1122 (2d Cir. 02/16/1995) ([T] he concealment by a fiduciary of material information which he is under a duty ti disclose to another under circumstances where the non-disclosure could or does result in harm to the other is a violation of the [mail fraud] statute. United States v. Bronston, 658 F.2d 920, 926 (2d Cir. 1981), Cert. Denied, 456 U.S. 915 (1982)).
4. Anderson, Green & Co. V. Martin, 44 S.W.3d at 212-13 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. denied) (citations omitted) (A duty to speak may arise in at least three other situations: First, when one voluntarily disclose information, he has the duty to disclose the whole truth. Second, when one makes a representation, he has a duty to disclose new information when he is aware the new information makes the earlier representation misleading or untrue. Finally, when one makes a partial disclosure and conveys false impression, he has a duty to speak.);

5. Knowing failure to disclose material information necessary to prevent statement from being misleading, or making representation despite knowledge that it has no reasonable basis in fact, are actionable as fraud under Texas law. Rubinstein v. Collins, 20 F.3d 160 (1990).

  6. When a person sustains to another a position of trust and confidence, his failure to disclose facts that he has a duty to disclose is as much a fraud as an actual misrepresentation. Blanton v. Sherman Compress Co., 256 S.W. 2d 884 (1953);

  7. FRAUD: An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right.

  “Silence constitutes fraud when there is an obligation to Speak.” US v. Twell 550 F2d, 297, 299- 300

Definition of VOLENS

Lat. Willing. He is said to be willing who either expressly consents or tacitly makes no opposition.

Calvin. Volenti non fit injuria. He who Consents cannot receive an injury.

Broom, Max. 268, 200, 271, 395; Shelf. Mar. & Div. 449; Wing. Max. 482; 4 Term It 657. Voluit, sed non dixit. lie willed, but he did not say. He may have intended so, but he did not say so. A maxim frequently used in the construction of wills, in answer to arguments based upon the supposed intention of a testator. 2 Pow. Dev. 625; 4 Kent Comm. 538.

Related Legal Terms:

NOLENS VOLENS  VOLENS | Definition of VOLENS (Black’s Law Dictionary)

When we file a case

A. The Claim to ownership of our bodies, names, and associated accounts comes first; newly-created rights as flesh and blood men and women, recognizing our freedom for the first time….becoming emancipated!

State that these are NEWLY-CREATED, never before claimed. This is our standing.
B. The Cause of Action comes next; I am claiming these operative facts:

1. Accuser
2. Injury, harm, or loss
3. Right violated
4. Remedy

When we file a case, we claim to be the Accuser (1) with the facts (2) which creates our enforceable Rights (3) which require Remedy (4).

On the other hand, when we are responding to the corporation as Accuser, when they give us a ticket, for ex., we are asking, where are these elements of the cause of action?

If we consent to be treated as persons=corporations, then the Accuser can be a corporation. When we respond by letting them know that we do not consent to be treated as a corporation, then they have to come up with the first 3 elements…..they can’t just skip directly to their remedy, which is demanding that you pay them money or be thrown into jail!

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply