Proof of Facts: That “franchises” do exist and that that you are a “franchisee”?
Who says franchise doesn’t exist? Nice of the government to pass a recent bill acknowledging franchise 34 times:
https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr1/BILLS-117hr1ih.pdf
Further, if franchise doesn’t exist, then why do courts routinely call the ability to vote a “franchise” such as in the above bill? Here is the definition of “franchise”:
FRANCHISE. A special privilege conferred by government on individual or corporation, and which does not belong to citizens of country generally of common right. Elliott v. City of Eugene, 135 Or. 108, 294 P. 358, 360. In England it is defined to be a royal privilege in the hands of a subject.
A “franchise,” as used by Blackstone in defining quo warranto, (3 Com. 262 [4th Am. Ed.] 322), had reference to a royal privilege or branch of the king’s prerogative subsisting in the hands of the subject, and must arise from the king’s grant, or be held by prescription, but today we understand a franchise to be some special privilege conferred by government on an individual, natural or artificial, which is not enjoyed by its citizens in general. State v. Fernandez, 106 Fla. 779, 143 So. 638, 639, 86 A.L.R. 240.
In this country a franchise is a privilege or immunity of a public nature, which cannot be legally exercised without legislative grant. To be a corporation is a franchise. The various powers conferred on corporations are franchises. The execution of a policy of insurance by an insurance company [e.g. Social Insurance/Socialist Security], and the issuing a bank note by an incorporated bank [such as a Federal Reserve NOTE], are franchises. People v. Utica Ins. Co., 15 Johns. (N.Y.) 387, 8 Am.Dec. 243. But it does not embrace the property acquired by the exercise of the franchise. Bridgeport v. New York & N.H. R. Co., 36 Conn. 255, 4 Am.Rep. 63. Nor involve interest in land acquired by grantee. Whitbeck v. Funk, 140 Or. 70, 12 P.2d. 1019, 1020. In a popular sense, the political rights of subjects and citizens are franchises, such as the right of suffrage. etc. Pierce v. Emery, 32 N.H. 484; State v. Black Diamond Co., 97 Ohio.St. 24, 119 N.E. 195, 199, L.R.A.1918E, 352.
Elective Franchise. The right of suffrage: the right or privilege of voting in public elections.
Exclusive Franchise. See Exclusive Privilege or Franchise.
General and Special. The charter of a corporation is its “general” franchise, while a “special” franchise consists in any rights granted by the public to use property for a public use but-with private profit. Lord v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 194 N.Y. 212, 87 N.E. 443, 22 L.R.A. (N.S.) 420.
Personal Franchise. A franchise of corporate existence, or one which authorizes the formation and existence of a corporation, is sometimes called a “personal” franchise. as distinguished from a “property” franchise, which authorizes a corporation so formed to apply its property to some particular enterprise or exercise some special privilege in its employment, as, for example, to construct and operate a railroad. See Sandham v. Nye, 9 Misc.Rep. 541, 30 N.Y.S. 552.
Secondary Franchises. The franchise of corporate existence being sometimes called the “primary” franchise of a corporation, its “secondary” franchises are the special and peculiar rights, privileges, or grants which it may, receive under its charter or from a municipal corporation, such as the right to use the public streets, exact tolls, collect fares, etc. State v. Topeka Water Co., 61 Kan. 547, 60 P. 337; Virginia Canon Toll Road Co. v. People, 22 Colo. 429, 45 P. 398 37 L.R.A. 711. The franchises of a corporation are divisible into (1) corporate or general franchises; and (2) “special or secondary franchises. The former is the franchise to exist as a corporation, while the latter are certain rights and privileges conferred upon existing corporations. Gulf Refining Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co., 166 Miss. 759, 108 So. 158, 160.
Special Franchisee. See Secondary Franchises, supra.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, pp. 786-787]
Note that per the above legal definition, everyone who calls themselves a STATUTORY “citizen” is a franchisee.
“In a popular sense, the political rights of subjects and citizens are franchises, such as the right of suffrage. etc. Pierce v. Emery, 32 N.H. 484; State v. Black Diamond Co., 97 Ohio.St. 24, 119 N.E. 195, 199, L.R.A.1918E, 352.”
QUESTION 1: Do you have a right to NOT be a “franchisee” and if you choose not to be one, what would you call yourself?
ANSWER 1: A non-resident “national” or “non-resident non-person”. You must have this choice, because the U.S. Supreme Court says everyone who calls themself a “citizen” is a “volunteer”!
“The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government. He owes allegiance to the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective spheres must pay the penalties which each exacts for disobedience to its laws. In return, he can demand protection from each within its own jurisdiction.”
[United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) [emphasis added]
How, then, did you “voluntarily submit” yourself to such a form of government and thereby contract with that government for “protection”? If people fully understood how they did this, many of them would probably immediately withdraw their consent and completely drop out of the corrupted, inefficient, and usurious system of government we have, now wouldn’t they? We have spent six long years researching this question, and our research shows that it wasn’t your nationality as a “national” of a legislatively but not constitutionally foreign state pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21) that made you subject to their civil laws. Well then, what was it?
It was your voluntary choice of CIVIL domicile and the CIVIL STATUTORY protection it affords!
So if you are a “subject” who is party to the civil statutory protection franchise, then all those who are “subjects” are VOLUNTEERS! The jailhouse door is unlocked and wide open and the key is hanging on the door right in front of you.!
“The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me,
Because the Lord has anointed Me
To preach good tidings to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the [government] captives
And the opening of the prison [government FARM, Form #12.020] to those who are bound;
To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,
And the day of vengeance of our God;”
[Isaiah 61:1-2, Bible, NKJV]
QUESTION 2: The main difference between “privilege” and “franchise” is the existence of a contract. What SPECIFIC contract is it that people who vote are party to? All franchises are privileges but not all statutory privileges are franchises as in the bill above.
ANSWER 2: We think the contract is called “the social compact” as described by Rousseau:
- The Social Contract or Principles of Political Right, book by Jean Rousseau-a classic that describes the “citizenship contract”. Rousseau is the father of socialism and he describes being a “citizen” as a contract or compact, just like Vattel in his Law of Nations
- HTML
- Constitution Society Version (OFFSITE LINK)
Google Books (OFFSITE LINK)
QUESTION 3: How does one become PARTY to this contract?
ANSWER 3: It’s not by being born or being a “national” by birth or naturalization! An act of birth is not an act of CHOICE, and all contracts require consent in some evidentiary form. In fact, its you choosing a civil domicile in a specific geographic place. Those who don’t in earlier times were called by any of the following names:
- “Idiot”
https://sedm.org/are-you-an-idiot-we-are/ - “Nonresident”
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/NonresidentNonPersonPosition.pdf - “Stateless”
- “transient foreigner”
- “cosmopolitan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmopolitan
So everyone who chooses a civil domicile is DEEMED to be a government contractor and/or agent, and implicitly consents to EVERYTHING the people they “elect” enact into law. They must do it this way because there are only TWO methods of lawfully creating enforceable obligations under the common law:
- An injury.
- A contract.
So they had to create a fictional “social contract” and make everyone who chooses a civil domicile a government contractor so they would be obligated to obey all the statutes that their elected “public officials” enact in their name and under their delegated authority. This, in fact, FLIPS the relationship upside down and turns public servants into public MASTERS, and puts the sovereign people out in the barn with the animals. More on avoiding government obligations at:
Lawfully Avoiding Government Obligations Course, Form #12.040
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/AvoidGovernmentObligations.pdf
The existence of this PRESUMED fictional “social compact” is why the ONLY thing that the people you “elect” through the “electoral franchise” produce is called a “BILL” like the one above. Its because you contracted with them as a BUYER or CUSTOMER of their CIVIL STATUTORY PROTECTION FRANCHISE (Form #05.037). Because you are PRESUMED to have CONSENTED to their “PROTECTION RACKET”, they have a right to determine how much they want to CHARGE or BILL you for the COST of delivering the product you are presumed to WANT. Government is a corporation, and the ONLY thing they produce is “Bills” and the civil statutory protection those “bills” deliver.
QUESTION 4: Do you have a right to NOT be a “customer”?
ANSWER 4: YES!
QUESTION 5: And do you have NO PROTECTION if you decide NOT to consent to become a “customer”?
ANSWER 5: YES! Below is a description of that protection:
Rebutted False Arguments About the Common Law, Form #08.025
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/RebuttedFalseArgumentsAboutCommonLaw.pdf
QUESTION 6: If governments are created to protect both your right to contract and your right to NOT contract, then can they compel you to contract with THEM under the “social compact”?
ANSWER 6: NO!
QUESTION 7: Do those who consent to the “social compact” and civil statutory protection franchise implicitly surrender their constitutional rights by availing themselves of the “benefit” of a civil statute?
ANSWER 7: YES!
The Court developed, for its own governance in the cases confessedly within its jurisdiction, a series of rules under which it has avoided passing upon a large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon it for decision. They are:
[. . .]
6. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.FN7 Great Falls Mfg. Co. v. Attorney General, 124 U.S. 581, 8 S.Ct. 631, 31 L.Ed. 527; Wall v. Parrot Silver & Copper Co., 244 U.S. 407, 411, 412, 37 S.Ct. 609, 61 L.Ed. 1229; St. Louis Malleable Casting Co. v. Prendergast Construction Co., 260 U.S. 469, 43 S.Ct. 178, 67 L.Ed. 351.
_____________
FOOTNOTES:
FN7 Compare Electric Co. v. Dow, 166 U.S. 489, 17 S.Ct. 645, 41 L.Ed. 1088; Pierce v. Somerset Ry., 171 U.S. 641, 648, 19 S.Ct. 64, 43 L.Ed. 316; Leonard v. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co., 198 U.S. 416, 422, 25 S.Ct. 750, 49 L.Ed. 1108.
[Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 56 S.Ct. 466 (1936)]
Municipal law, thus understood, is properly defined to be “a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power in a state, commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong.”
[. . .]
It is also called a rule to distinguish it from a compact or agreement; for a compact is a promise proceeding from us, law is a command directed to us. The language of a compact is, “I will, or will not, do this”; that of a law is, “thou shalt, or shalt not, do it.” It is true there is an obligation which a compact carries with it, equal in point of conscience to that of a law; but then the original of the obligation is different. In compacts we ourselves determine and promise what shall be done, before we are obliged to do it; in laws. we are obliged to act without ourselves determining or promising anything at all. Upon these accounts law is defined to be “a rule.”
[Readings on the History and System of the Common Law, Second Edition, Roscoe Pound, 1925, p. 4]
“The words “privileges” and “immunities,” like the greater part of the legal phraseology of this country, have been carried over from the law of Great Britain, and recur constantly either as such or in equivalent expressions from the time of Magna Charta. For all practical purposes they are synonymous in meaning, and originally signified a peculiar right or private law conceded to particular persons or places whereby a certain individual or class of individuals was exempted from the rigor of the common law. Privilege or immunity is conferred upon any person when he is invested with a legal claim to the exercise of special or peculiar rights, authorizing him to enjoy some particular advantage or exemption.[1] “
[The Privileges and Immunities of State Citizenship, Roger Howell, PhD, 1918, pp. 9-10;
SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/ThePrivAndImmOfStateCit/The_privileges_and_immunities_of_state_c.pdf]FOOTNOTES:
“What, then, is [civil] legislation? It is an assumption [presumption] by one man, or body of men, of absolute, irresponsible dominion [because of abuse of sovereign immunity and the act of “CONSENT” by calling yourself a “citizen”] over all other men whom they call subject to their power. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to subject all other men to their will and their service. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to abolish outright all the natural rights, all the natural liberty of all other men; to make all other men their slaves; to arbitrarily dictate to all other men what they may, and may not, do; what they may, and may not, have; what they may, and may not, be. It is, in short, the assumption of a right to banish the principle of human rights, the principle of justice itself, from off the earth, and set up their own personal will [society of men and not law], pleasure, and interest in its place. All this, and nothing less, is involved in the very idea that there can be any such thing as human [CIVIL] legislation that is obligatory upon those upon whom it is imposed [and ESPECIALLY those who never expressly consented in writing].”
[Natural Law, Chapter 1, Section IV, Lysander Spooner;
SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Indiv/SpoonerLysander/NaturalLaw.htm]
We therefore think the “COST” of the “BILL” for their civil statutory protection franchise (a criminal “protection racket” if they won’t let you opt out) is TOO HIGH. WE opt for the REGULAR version of the gas they offer, rather than the PREMIUM gas by becoming a “non-resident non-person”. All RIGHTS reserved!
Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/NonresidentNonPersonPosition.pdf
For more on the subject of domicile and how it makes you in effect a government contractor, see:
- Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Domicile.pdf - Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Family Guardian Fellowship
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Remedies/DomicileBasisForTaxation.htm
God, on the other hand says YOU CAN’T CONTRACT WITH ANY GOVERNMENT, and that IF YOU DO SO as a BUYER rather than a MERCHANT, you will be targeted by a CURSE! See:
Commandments About Relationship of Believers to the World, SEDM
https://sedm.org/home/commandments-about-relationship-of-believers-to-the-world/