Comment: The Consent is obvious in the

(See in situ)


The Consent is obvious in the

The Consent is obvious in the form of signatures, and the lack of a court hearing to void the contract

Full disclosure is debatable, all of the info is available. Do you read the entire code surrounding lotto tickets before you buy one? Do you read all of the codes and definitions before you buy a car or house? YOU have the responsibility of due diligence.

The consideration is abundant. Wellfare, food stamps, unemployment, social security benefits. Whether you have received these or not is not important, because a promise is consideration.
for example:

Langer v. Superior Steel Corp., 105 Pa. Super. 579, 161 A. 571 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1932).
http://www.lawnix.com/cases/langer-superior-steel.html

THIS is why I suggest that one establishes fraud in the courts to remove the burden of these presumptions. Under your philosophy, you can keep the number, use it when you want, play your game of sovereign, then when you get sick of it, or if you get ill, reap the benefits of the democracy.

Under my philosophy, you reject all possible associations. I had to recind all money ever paid to SS, and declare that I would never request any benefits from the US INC.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Q0y2PcxnBRgC&lpg=PA79&ots=W...

Status of citizenship of United States is privilege, and Congress is free to attach any preconditions to its attainment that it deems fit and proper. > In re Thanner, D.C.Colo.1966, 253 F.Supp. 283. See, also, > Boyd v. Nebraska, Neb.1892, 12 S.Ct. 375, 143 U.S. 162, 36 L.Ed. 103; > Application of Bernasconi, D.C.Cal.1953, 113 F.Supp. 71; > In re Martinez, D.C.Pa.1947, 73 F.Supp. 101; > U.S. v. Morelli, D.C.Cal.1943, 55 F.Supp. 181; In re De Mayo, D.C.Mo.1938, 26 F.Supp. 696; > State v. Boyd, 1892, 51 N.W. 602, 31 Neb. 682.