HOW TO: The BEST Way to LAWFULLY Reject ANY and ALL Benefits in Court that is Unassailable

SOURCE: Why The Government is the Only Real Beneficiary of All Government Franchises, Form #05.051**, Section 2

Throughout this site we frequently state that it is a maxim of law that you have an absolute RIGHT to reject any and all “benefits”, “privileges”, “franchises”, and government property and the obligation to pay for them. Below are some examples:

“Cujus est commodum ejus debet esse incommodum.
He who receives the benefit should also bear the disadvantage.”

“Que sentit commodum, sentire debet et onus.
He who derives a benefit from a thing, ought to feel the disadvantages attending it. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1433.”

Commodum ex injuri su non habere debet.
No man ought to derive any benefit of his own wrong. Jenk. Cent. 161.

Invito beneficium non datur.
No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent. Dig. 50, 17, 69. But if he does not dissent he will be considered as assenting. Vide Assent.

Potest quis renunciare pro se, et suis, juri quod pro se introductum est.
A man may relinquish, for himself and his heirs, a right which was introduced for his own benefit. See 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 83.

Quilibet potest renunciare juri pro se inducto.
Any one may renounce a law introduced for his own benefit. To this rule there are some exceptions. See 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 83.

[Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856;
SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm]

The above are principles of EQUITY that all maxims of law implement. We talk about the above principles in the following link on our opening page, in fact:

Hot Issues: Common Law and Equity Litigation
https://sedm.org/common-law-litigation/

But HOW exactly might one invoke these principles in a common law or equity setting to in effect COMPEL the court to respect them and which might be easy to explain to a common law jury? That is the focus of this article.

To answer that question, we must first focus on when and where we would most likely need to do this. Most often, this approach would be needed in tax litigation relating to civilly or criminally enforcing the payment or non-payment of a tax. We must remember that all taxes have the following characteristics in common:

1. The tax relates to your obligation to pay for a specific “benefit” or “privilege”.
2. The obligation to pay the tax covers a specific defined period of time such as a year.
3. You acquired the obligation to pay from a CIVIL perspective by joining a specific class, group, or civil status that has the obligation.
4. The government has the burden of proving that you voluntarily joined the group that is the only proper object of enforcement authority. If not, slavery and human trafficking are involved on their part.
5. The government attempting to enforce disguises the ORIGIN of the obligation to pay by calling it a “quasi-contract”. This is a code word for a voluntary act you engaged in that is excise taxable and which constituted CONSTRUCTIVE consent to join the civil legal group or class that is the only proper object of the civil obligation to pay.
6. The group or class that has the obligation is ALWAYS an OFFICE within the government that is legislatively created by civil legislation enacted by the government.
7. By claiming the status defined in the legislation creating the office, you in effect are deemed to VOLUNTEER for the obligations attached to the civil office by accepting the juridicial privileges (franchises, Form #05.030) that are ALSO attached to it.
8. By invoking or accepting the civil statutory juridicial PRIVILEGES and public rights (franchises, Form #05.030) attached to the office, you also implicitly accept the obligations that make the delivery of those rights possible. Thus, the government is a Merchant offering you its PUBLIC property, you are the Buyer, and there is a “tacit procuration” or “sub silentio” purchase of their property or services by seeking or invoking those property or services in an administrative or judicial setting.
9. The authority to force you to PAY for the benefit or privilege you are seeking originates not only from the above maxims of law, but the common law principle of unjust enrichment.

Unjust enrichment is described below:

unjust enrichment. (1897) 1. The retention of a benefit conferred by another not as a gift, but instead in circumstances where compensation is reasonably expected. 2. A benefit obtained from another, not intended as a gift and not legally justifiable, for which the beneficiary must make restitution or recompense. • Unjust enrichment is a basis of civil liability involving a claim for recovery that sometimes also goes by the name restitution. Instances of unjust enrichment typically arise when property is transferred by an act of wrongdoing (as by conversion or breach of fiduciary duty), or without the effective consent of the transferor (as in a case of mistake), or when a benefit is conferred deliberately but without a contract, and the court concludes that the absence of a contract is excusable as when the benefit was provided in an emergency, or when the parties once seemed to have a contract but it turns out to be invalid:, The resulting claim of unjust enrichment seeks to recover the defendant’s gains. 3. The area of law dealing with unjustifiable benefits of this kind.

[Black’s Law Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, pp. 1849-1850]

The U.S. Supreme Court describes the concept of unjust enrichment in the context of taxation as follows by calling it “indebtitatus assumpsit”, meaning an “assumed debt” on your part. The obligation it calls “quasi-contractual”:

“Even if the judgment is deemed to be colored by the nature of the obligation whose validity it establishes, and we are free to re-examine it, and, if we find it to be based on an obligation penal in character, to refuse to enforce it outside the state where rendered, see Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Co., 127 U.S. 265, 292, et seq. 8 S.Ct. 1370, compare Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U.S. 230, 28 S.Ct. 641, still the obligation to pay taxes is not penal. It is a statutory liability, quasi contractual in nature, enforceable, if there is no exclusive statutory remedy, in the civil courts by the common-law action of debt or indebitatus assumpsit. United States v. Chamberlin, 219 U.S. 250, 31 S.Ct. 155; Price v. United States, 269 U.S. 492, 46 S.Ct. 180; Dollar Savings Bank v. United States, 19 Wall. 227; and see Stockwell v. United States, 13 Wall. 531, 542; Meredith v. United States, 13 Pet. 486, 493. This was the rule established in the English courts before the Declaration of Independence. Attorney General v. Weeks, Bunbury’s Exch. Rep. 223; Attorney General v. Jewers and Batty, Bunbury’s Exch. Rep. 225; Attorney General v. Hatton, Bunbury’s Exch. Rep. [296 U.S. 268, 272]   262; Attorney General v. _ _, 2 Ans.Rep. 558; see Comyn’s Digest (Title ‘Dett,’ A, 9); 1 Chitty on Pleading, 123; cf. Attorney General v. Sewell, 4 M.&W. 77. “

[Milwaukee v. White, 296 U.S. 268 (1935)]

Therefore, in all unjust enrichment scenarios, someone is offering PROPERTY or SERVICES (which is also property) as a Merchant which cost money to produce or deliver and are implicitly NOT free. Although the property or services don’t come to you with a price schedule and they don’t specifically identify themselves as a Merchant, the courts inevitably will refer to the person offering as a Merchant and you as a Buyer under the U.C.C. You will therefore be treated AS IF you were Buyer under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) whether you know it or not and whether you wanted to be or not. By the government merely making the property or services available to you as a Buyer to ASK for on a government application constitutes an OFFER in commerce, and you applying for or accepting the property or sometimes even being ELIGIBLE to receive it constitutes an acceptance. The above scenario is sometimes referred to as:

1. Implied consent.
2. Quid pro quo.
3. Tacit procuration.
4. Sub silentio.
5. Excise taxable privilege.

So there is an INVISIBLE (in most cases) and IMPLIED commercial process at work whenever you deal with the government and ask them for their property, services, or privileges, whether they expressly communicate that to you or not. The U.S. Supreme Court even identified this as a “concession”. A “concession” is a process where someone is SELLING something to you and BY YOUR ACTIONS ALONE YOU BECOME A BUYER from a legal perspective:

“The compensation which the owners of property, not having any special rights or privileges from the government in connection with it, may demand for its use, or for their own services in union with it, forms no element of consideration in prescribing regulations for that purpose.

[. . .]

“It is only where some right or privilege [which are GOVERNMENT PROPERTY] is conferred by the government or municipality upon the owner, which he can use in connection with his property, or by means of which the use of his property is rendered more valuable to him, or he thereby enjoys an advantage over others, that the compensation to be received by him becomes a legitimate matter of regulation. Submission to the regulation of compensation in such cases is an implied condition of the grant, and the State, in exercising its power of prescribing the compensation, only determines the conditions upon which its concession shall be enjoyed. When the privilege ends, the power of regulation ceases.”

[Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1876)]

Unjust enrichment is an equitable and common law principle. That means it applies EQUALLY to EVERYONE, not just the government. NO ONE can use it unless EVERYONE can use it. This also means that you CAN and even SHOULD use it against the government, and especially when they are trying to use it against you to justify or defend their authority to enforce against you. This approach is an implementation of the Sun Tzu proverbs of war, which say that you can defeat your enemy by using their greatest strength against them.

We give a high level overview on the opening page of our site about the above conundrum that most people often UNKNOWINGLY volunteer for with the following succinct summary of how it operates:

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.

[SEDM Website Opening Page; http://sedm.org]

Essentially then, the entire income tax system operates entirely under equity, is not expressly authorized by the constitution, and abuses “benefits” and “franchises” to unconstitutionally invade the states in violation of the Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution:

“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 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)]

The advantage you have in your favor when you invoke this process against the government is that:

1. Most of the money the government spends is actually just PRINTED or BORROWED into existence. There is no “benefit” to you in them doing that and a LOT of injury to future generations who will have to foot the bill to service that debt.
2. The government ALWAYS charges WAY more for their property and services than it costs to deliver them. This is because they have to ADD the cost of the borrowing and printing of money spent on things OTHER than the “benefit” that often aren’t even constitutionally authorized. Thus, the UNAUTHORIZED spending usually dwarfs the cost of the actual “benefit” they DO deliver.
3. The inflation they invoke by printing the money erodes the actual benefit received, which often isn’t received until DECADES after it is paid for, as in the case of Social Security.
4. Most of the money the government spends is for service on the national debt. It doesn’t in actuality pay for the delivery of the product or service you are often seeking. This was one of the principles established by Ronald Reagan’s Grace Commission Report.
5. The time period for which a tax owes almost NEVER overlaps with WHEN the benefit or service is actually delivered. Thus, no matter what time period you are talking about, if you attempted to equitably BALANCE the cost with the payment, the government would ALWAYS lose in the accounting process and thereby ultimately be the ONLY party who in actuality would actually engage in an “unjust enrichment”.
6. Any calculations that might be done to reconcile the account under equitable principles must consider the Net Present Value adjusted for inflation of what was contributed and what is actually paid. The government always loses on that accounting as well, because their money printing in effect behaves as a INVISIBLE tax. That “tax” should be accounted for in the calculations as well in order to be truly equitable.
7. The government corruptly tries to deny their responsibility under rules of equity by invoking sovereign immunity unlawfully. It is unlawful because all their powers are delegated by THE SOVEREIGN people and you can’t delegate it unless YOU have it and can use it against them AS WELL. Thus, the government are HYPOCRITES and elitists who deny the use of unjust enrichment against THEM but want to use it against you.
8. In most cases, the benefit delivered is not even expressly authorized by the written law. Social Security and income tax BOTH are never expressly authorized to be offered or paid in the constitutional state. See Form #06.002. Thus, the government in an unjust enrichment claim is abusing it to BENEFIT from an activity they have NO CONSTITUTIONAL authority to even engage in within the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state. It is also a principal of equity that NO ONE should be allowed to BENEFIT from an unlawful, injurious, or criminal act and the government loses on this one as well.
9. The tax obligation being enforced is often, as in the case of statutory “wages” bundled with other obligations. On this site and section 4.30 of our Disclaimer, we call this “weaponization of the government”. For instance, you can’t earn statutory “wages” under the Social Security Act without ALSO earning “wages” that are taxable under the Internal Revenue Code, even though THAT obligation is not a “benefit”. Thus, you are in effect being asked to pay an ADDITIONAL tax beyond SSI deductions for something that is not literally a “benefit” and which no one in their right mind would ever perceive as a “benefit”

Therefore, if you invoke an equitable proceeding against the government to enforce an unjust enrichment AGAINST THEM, and actually quantify the value they can prove they delivered over the taxing period in question and compare that with what you actually paid for it, THEN NO MATTER WHAT, the government would ultimately and INEVITABLY LOSE and be the only one who actually should pay ANYTHING to ANYONE in that legal proceeding. We prove this in:

Why The Government is the Only Real Beneficiary of All Government Franchises, Form #05.051**
https://sedm.org/product/why-the-government-is-the-only-real-beneficiary-of-all-government-franchises-form-05-051/

Below is sample language we would use to ensure the court and the jury must enforce your right to NOT receive the benefit, privilege, public right, or property of the government that gives rise to the civil obligation being enforced and which does not make you look irresponsible or narcissistic to the jury, but rather RESPONSIBLE, conscientious, and seeking to behave in a respectful and equitable manner that is more likely to help you win your case. That discussion follows after the line below.

“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, there is no question that all those who consume the services of others should pay for them, including me. This includes both the government as a Merchant offering property and services to me, as well as me offering property and services to the government. Any attempt to apply these principles unequally to either party to this controversy ultimately results in an abuse of you the jury to participate in, condone, and even commit a THEFT on the part of the government. Under principles of the common law and equity, this scenario is called ‘unjust enrichment’, which gives rise to an implied obligation to always pay for whatever you ask someone else for. If we didn’t run the government the government this way, then people could abuse their power to vote and serve on jury duty to use the government as a thief and a Robinhood to equalize OUTCOMES rather than merely OPPORTUNITY and treatment. On this subject, the U.S. Supreme Court has held:

“. . . A tax, in the general understanding of the term and as used in the constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of the government. The word has never thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another. . .”

[U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)]

_______________________________

To lay, with one hand, the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less a robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation.  This is not legislation.  It is a decree under legislative forms.

Nor is it taxation.  ‘A tax,’ says Webster’s Dictionary, ‘is a rate or sum of money assessed on the person or property of a citizen by government for the use of the nation or State.’  ‘Taxes are burdens or charges imposed by the Legislature upon persons or property to raise money for public purposes.’  Cooley, Const. Lim., 479.

Coulter, J., in Northern Liberties v. St. John’s Church, 13 Pa. St., 104 says, very forcibly, ‘I think the common mind has everywhere taken in the understanding that taxes are a public imposition, levied by authority of the government for the purposes of carrying on the government in all its machinery and operations—that they are imposed for a public purpose.’  See, also Pray v. Northern Liberties, 31 Pa.St., 69; Matter of Mayor of N.Y., 11 Johns., 77; Camden v. Allen, 2 Dutch., 398; Sharpless v. Mayor, supra; Hanson v. Vernon, 27 Ia., 47; Whiting v. Fond du Lac, supra.”

[Loan Association v. Topeka, 87 U.S. 655, 20 Wall. 655 (1874)]

This case involves nonpayment of an alleged “tax” for the specific years _____ to _______. A proper accounting under equitable principles requires us to consider the “benefits”, services, or property dispensed to me personally by the government over that period with what I actually paid. Any other approach would violate the principles of equity and unjust enrichment and make this jury an instrument of THEFT.

A “tax”, in this case is legally defined by the U.S. Supreme Court as a sum of money that supports ONLY the government or people working in or for the government. That means it cannot be paid to private, constitutionally protected parties in states of the Union, and if it IS, it ceases to be a classical “tax” as legally defined and devolves merely into a purely commercial activity conducted for profit like any private business, in which BOTH parties are treated NOT as a “government” but merely equals under equitable principles under the Clearfield Doctrine of the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the instant case, I have not sought, do not want, and do not want to pay for any “benefit”, privilege, or exemption offered by any government. The ability to do so is my right under principles of equity, in fact:

“Cujus est commodum ejus debet esse incommodum.
He who receives the benefit should also bear the disadvantage.”

“Que sentit commodum, sentire debet et onus.
He who derives a benefit from a thing, ought to feel the disadvantages attending it. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1433.”

Commodum ex injuri su non habere debet.
No man ought to derive any benefit of his own wrong. Jenk. Cent. 161.

Invito beneficium non datur.
No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent. Dig. 50, 17, 69. But if he does not dissent he will be considered as assenting. Vide Assent.

Potest quis renunciare pro se, et suis, juri quod pro se introductum est.
A man may relinquish, for himself and his heirs, a right which was introduced for his own benefit. See 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 83.

Quilibet potest renunciare juri pro se inducto.
Any one may renounce a law introduced for his own benefit. To this rule there are some exceptions. See 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 83.

[Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856;SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm]

Paying or rendering a “benefit”, property, or service to someone who does not WANT it, has communicated that objection timely to the person offering, and who has identified any attempt to provide it against their will is not as a GRANT of a “benefit” but a GIFT by the provider, cannot therefore produce any equitable obligation whatsoever. Further, it is beyond the authority delegated to me by my principal, who is God under the Bible trust indenture, to ask for, accept, or pay for ANY benefit, property, or civil service that any so-called “government” might attempt to abuse to enslave me to them:

Curses of Disobedience [to God’s Laws]

“The alien [Washington, D.C. is legislatively “alien” in relation to states of the Union] who is among you shall rise higher and higher above you, and you shall come down lower and lower [malicious destruction of EQUAL PROTECTION and EQUAL TREATMENT by abusing FRANCHISES].  He shall lend to you [Federal Reserve counterfeiting franchise], but you shall not lend to him; he shall be the head, and you shall be the tail.

“Moreover all these curses shall come upon you and pursue and overtake you, until you are destroyed, because you did not obey the voice of the Lord your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which He commanded you.  And they shall be upon you for a sign and a wonder, and on your descendants forever.

“Because you did not serve [ONLY] the Lord your God with joy and gladness of heart, for the abundance of everything,  therefore you shall serve your [covetous thieving lawyer] enemies, whom the Lord will send against you, in hunger, in thirst, in nakedness, and in need of everything; and He will put a yoke of iron [franchise codes] on your neck until He has destroyed you.  The Lord will bring a nation against you from afar [the District of CRIMINALS], from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flies [the American Eagle], a nation whose language [LEGALESE] you will not understand,  a nation of fierce [coercive and fascist] countenance, which does not respect the elderly [assassinates them by denying them healthcare through bureaucratic delays on an Obamacare waiting list] nor show favor to the young [destroying their ability to learn in the public FOOL system].  And they shall eat the increase of your livestock and the produce of your land [with “trade or business” franchise taxes], until you [and all your property] are destroyed [or STOLEN/CONFISCATED]; they shall not leave you grain or new wine or oil, or the increase of your cattle or the offspring of your flocks, until they have destroyed you.
[Deut. 28:43-51, Bible, NKJV]

“The rich rules over the poor,
And the borrower is servant to the lender.”
[Prov. 22:7, Bible, NKJV]

When a government actor is sued for wrongdoing under the constitution, they can only be sued if the Plaintiff can prove they acted outside their delegated authority of their “principal” and “employer”, the U.S. Inc. federal corporation. The same principle applies here, except that the Plaintiff is a de facto government and the principal is different because MY principal, being God, is superior to that of any government. In the capacity of this proceeding, I am acting as an agent and fiduciary of God 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and have not stepped out of the protections of the Bible trust indenture that is my delegation of authority order, as documented in:

Delegation of Authority Order from God to Christians, Form #13.007
https://sedm.org/Forms/13-SelfFamilyChurchGovnce/DelOfAuthority.pdf

My delegation of authority order also forbids me from seeking the protection of anything but His laws, the common law, the criminal law, and the Constitution and NEVER the civil statutory franchise protection contract called “domicile”, as proven in:

Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Domicile.pdf

Therefore, we must settle this matter under equitable rather than civil statutory terms, and to treat both parties absolutely equally. A failure by you the jury or this court will have the practical effect of turning the government into an unconstitutional civil religion in violation of the First Amendment, make the judge into the priest, make you into the apostle of the priest, make this courtroom into a church, make the attorneys into deacons of the church, and impute or enforce superior and supernatural powers to a collective corporation called “U.S. Inc” (Form #05.024) that I as the natural am not allowed to have. That unlawful establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment is documented below in:

Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/SocialismCivilReligion.pdf

Over the tax period in question, a deduction of what I received from what I paid results in a net negative balance to the government. That means under principles of equity that:

1. The government has no standing to sue, because they cannot demonstrate an actual injury.
2. The government is the only one in this case engaging in “unjust enrichment”.
3. The government is the ONLY one receiving a net “benefit” or privilege from ME rather than the other way around. In that scenario, I am the only “Merchant” under the U.C.C. and I am the ONLY one who can define the terms of my offer of the privilege involved as its absolute owner. See:
   Why the Government is the Only Real Beneficiary of All Government Franchises, Form #05.051
   https://sedm.org/product/why-the-government-is-the-only-real-beneficiary-of-all-government-franchises-form-05-051/
4. The government has a moral and implied legal duty to correct this inequity by paying me the DIFFERENCE to me as a Merchant offering MY property, services, and “benefits” to them.

Since I am the only Merchant involved in this interaction offering property for sale, I am the ONLY one allowed to write the terms of procuring my services. Those terms are documented below:

Injury Defense Franchise and Agreement, Form #06.027
https://sedm.org/Forms/06-AvoidingFranch/InjuryDefenseFranchise.pdf

Further, the so-called “benefits” being enforced in this case cannot even lawfully be offered or enforced within a constitutional state of the union as described in:

1. Why You Aren’t Eligible for Social Security, Form #06.001
   https://sedm.org/Forms/06-AvoidingFranch/SSNotEligible.pdf
2. Challenge to Income Tax Enforcement Authority Within Constitutional States of the Union, Form #05.052
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-Memlaw/ChallengeToIRSEnforcementAuth.pdf

It is a maxim of law and equity that one should not be allowed to “benefit” from illegal, injurious, or non-consensual acts against anyone. Thus, there is NO BENEFIT whatsoever delivered by the government to me AT ALL. Further, it is a crime for the government to try to BRIBE me illegally to create an office with a bribe of “benefits” that are not lawfully available to me. See 18 U.S.C. 201 and 210, and 18 U.S.C. 912.

Therefore, you, the jury and this court have a moral obligation to:

1. Dismiss the government’s action against me
2. Sanction them for the criminal and illegal and even unconstitutional conduct in this case per the terms of the above agreement, Form #06.027 equitably governing this relationship.