Law of Consent (1 of 1)

2. You know that the form is the WRONG form and that filling it out will constitute fraud and perjury. 3. You write on the form or on an attachment to it that you were under duress to fill it out and that it is FALSE, and that the institutor of the duress is the responsible party for why it is false, because they are actively interfering with filling it out with correct information or with using a DIFFERENT and MORE CORRECT form that accurately describes your status. 4. In self defense, you attach to the compelled form a list of definitions for what the words on the form mean, all of which are the complete opposite of those found in the Internal Revenue Code and which place you, your property, and your domicile outside of the statutory but not constitutional "United States" and outside of federal jurisdiction. 5. You submit a criminal complaint to the requesting that the IRS prosecute the institutor of the duress for conspiracy to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. §287, impersonating a public officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. §912. 6. The IRS deliberately engages in "selective enforcement" by refusing to prosecute the institutor of the duress so that they can fill their pockets with STOLEN plunder. . . .Then could the withholding forms you submit be counted as an "agreement"? For instance, 26 CFR §31.3401(a)-3(a) and 26 CFR §31.3402(p) identify the IRS Form W-4 as an "agreement", but if you know you are not the statutory federal "employee" described in the upper left corner of the form and also in 26 U.S.C. §3401(d) and 5 U.S.C. §2105, isn't the agreement the product of "error" and thus, the consent VOID based on the above analysis? Therefore, all alleged "taxes" resulting from the coerced exchange in fact are THEFT and not "taxes" as legally defined? Isn't the only difference between theft and a "donation" the consent of the original owner? Incidentally a form that you can use to attach to tax withholding paperwork that in fact does all the above, and which is MANDATORY in the case of all members in handling their tax withholding, is the following form on our website: The filing of a tax return, for instance, under the fear of reprisal cannot therefore truthfully be characterized as "voluntary compliance". Compliance is enforced through the authority of law. That which is voluntary CANNOT lawfully be enforced. Which is it? This phrase is in fact an oxymoron, a contradiction, and cognitive dissonance. Aristotle said that all such contradictions can never lead to truth. We might also add they can never lead to justice. Implicit in the exercise of one's right to contract is the right to prescribe: 1. WHAT FORM consent must take before it becomes legal evidence of agreement. 2. What constitutes sufficient consideration so as to make the resulting contract or agreement enforceable. 3. The meaning of silence or acquiescence. For instance, the person giving consent has a right to declare that silence or acquiescence SHALL NOT constitute "agreement", or evidence of consent, and that the only form that agreement may take is a written, signed, notarized contract. So long as reasonable notice is given to the offeror of the contract or agreement in advance of the transaction proposed, the notice given then prescribes and limits the form that the agreement must take to make it legal evidence of consent. For instance, during the civil war, the United States government enacted a law prescribing what form that contracts with the government must take by stating that all contracts MUST be in writing and that parole contracts were forbidden. This enactment was discussed at length in Clark v. United States, 95 U.S. 539 (1877), which held on the subject the following in response to Congress' enactment:

"Every man is supposed to know the law. A party who makes a contract [or enters into a franchise, which is also a contract] with an officer [of the government] without having it reduced to writing is knowingly accessory to a violation of duty on his part. Such a party aids in the violation of the law." [Clark v. United States, 95 U.S. 539 (1877)]

Based on the concept of equal rights and equal protections, if the government can prescribe what form its contracts must take, then we as the source of all of their delegated power must also have the SAME EQUAL right. The legal definition of "consent" also establishes under what circumstances an agreement becomes INSUFFICIENT evidence of consent. Paragraph 9 is the paragraph to pay attention to:

Requirement for Consent

29