The following is parts taken from The Trade or Business Scam, Form #05.001
http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/TradeOrBusScam.pdf which I would encourage you to download and study it out as well as all the other subjects the website provides.
Volunti non fit
injuria
He who consents cannot receive an injury.
2 Bouv. Inst. n. 2279, 2327; 4 T.R. 657; Shelf. on mar. & Div. 449.
Consensus tollit
errorem
Consent removes or obviates a mistake
Co. Litt. 126
Melius est Omnia mala pati quam malo concentire.
It is better to suffer every wrong or ill, then to consent to it.
3 Co. Inst. 23.
Nemo videtur fraudare eos qui sciunt, et consentiunt.
One cannot complain of having been deceived when he knew the fact and gave his consent.
Dig. 50, 17, 145. [Bouvier's Maxims of Law, 1856.
Source:
http://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm
A very important subject is the division of legal authority between PUBLIC and PRIVATE rights. On this subject the U.S. Supreme Court held:
"A private person cannot make constitutions or laws, nor can he with authority construe them, nor can he administer or execute
them."
[United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629, 1 S.Ct. 601, 27 L.Ed. 290 (1883)]
If you can't "execute" them, then you ALSO can't enforce them against ANYONE else. Some people might be tempted to say that we all construe them against the private person daily, but in fact we can't do that WITHOUT being a
public officer WITHIN the government. If we do enforce the law as a private person, we are criminally impersonating a public officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. §912. Another U.S. Supreme Court cite also confirms why this must be:
"All the powers of the government [including ALL of its civil enforcement powers against the public] must be carried into operation by individual agency, either through the medium of public officers,
or contracts made with [private] individuals."
[Osborn v. Bank of U.S., 22 U.S. 738 (1824)]
"...we are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an [PRIVATE] individual and a
[PUBLIC] corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the state. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such
duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long
as he does not trespass upon their rights.
Upon the other hand, the [PUBLIC] corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It
receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to [201 U.S. 43, 75] act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers . It would be a strange anomaly to hold that a state, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not, in the exercise of its sovereignty, inquire how these franchises had been employed, and whether they had been
abused, and demand the production of the corporate books and papers for that purpose. The defense amounts to this: That an officer of a corporation which is charged with a criminal violation of the statute, may plead the criminality of such corporation as a refusal to produce its books. To state this proposition is to answer it. While an individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating questions unless protected by an immunity statute, it does not follow that a corporation, vested with
special privileges and franchises, may refuse to show its hand when charged with an abuse of such privileges." [Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906)]
You MUST therefore be an agent of the government and therefore a PUBLIC officer in order to "make constitutions or laws or administer, execute, or ENFORCE" EITHER. Examples of
"agents" or "public officers" of the government include all the following:
1. "person" (26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(1)).
2. "individual" (26 C.F.R. §1441-1(c )(3)).
3. "taxpayer" (26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(14)).
4. "withholding agent" (26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(16)).
"The government thus lays a tax, through the [GOVERNMENT] instrumentality [PUBLIC OFFICE] of the company [a FEDERAL and not STATE corporation], upon the income of a non-resident alien over whom
it cannot justly exercise any control, nor upon whom it can justly lay any burden."
[ United States v. Erie R. Co., 106 U.S. 327 (1882)]