Law of Consent (1 of 1)

Until Congress speaks otherwise, we therefore shall continue to require, in both tax felonies and tax misdemeanors that must be done "willfully," the bad purpose or evil motive described in Murdock, supra. We hold, consequently, that the word "willfully" has the same meaning in 7207 that it has in 7206(1) . Since the only issue in dispute in this case centered on willfulness, it follows that a conviction of the misdemeanor would clearly support a conviction for the felony. 9 Under these circumstances a lesser-included-o f fense instruction was not required or proper, for in the federal system it is not the function of the jury to set the penalty. Berra v. United States, 351 U.S.. at 134 -135. [412 U.S. 346, 362] " Ma d i t g s t L y B i s ho p . 3 6 (1973 ) . Empha s i s add ed] The above definitions of "willful" recognize the limitations upon what constitutes evidence of consent and therefore "agreement", as described earlier: 1. Your belief cannot be the product of error. This recognizes the element in the definition of "consent" in which it said that evidence of consent is invalid if it is the product of error. An example of an "innocent error" would be misinterpreting a "word of art". 2. You must have a legal status to which the SPECIFIC duty in question attaches and be aware that you have that status. For instance, the U.S. Supreme Court above refers only to "taxpayers", meaning that you must be a "taxpayer" and declare yourself a "taxpayer" and act like a "taxpayer" before you can actually BE a "taxpayer" and therefore in fact THE SUBJECT of the duty defined in the "trade or business" franchise agreement codified in I.R.C. Subtitle A. In other words, you must consent to be party to the franchise before the franchise agreement can be enforced against you. 3. You must KNOW you have a legal duty. This is equivalent to the requirement in the definition of "consent" which states that consent given by a person who has no understanding is NOT valid. 4. You must have SOMETHING which constitutes legally admissible evidence upon which to base the belief that you have that duty. This is consistent with the legal definition of consent, in which duress cannot be present. Any authority the government claims to impose a "duty" upon you must be based on legally admissible evidence, and if it is not, then your belief about the duty is based on duress. For instance, the Internal Revenue Code is identified in 1 U.S.C. §204 as "prima facie evidence", meaning a PRESUMPTION and not REAL evidence. Statutory presumptions, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, DO NOT constitute legal evidence of ANYTHING. All presumption that causes an injury or deprivation of constitutional rights, unless consensual, is unconstitutional and a tort. Defenses commonly used by defendants in federal court against the criminal charge of "willful failure to file" a tax return under 26 U.S.C. §7203 focus primarily upon the authority and quality of the evidence upon which a person relied in making the determination that they DID NOT have the duty prescribed or the status to which the duty attaches. Below is a list of some of the defenses: 1. Defendants argue that they cannot understand the law and that they have tried to read it. 2. Defendants argue that they sought professional advice, relied on the professional advice, and therefore rationally concluded that they had no duty. 3. Defendant's cite cases from the U.S. Supreme Court establishing the basis for the fact that they don't have the status to which the duty attaches. Even in catholic sacramental theology one cannot commit a grievous (i.e. mortal) sin without full CONSENT of the will. Will, meaning a desire for something to actually happen, is a necessary component for consent. One commits an accident of manslaughter when they didn't know the gun was loaded, but they consent when they commit premeditated murder. Based on all the above, we argue that it is simply not possible to willfully fail to file a tax return because: 1. The entire Internal Revenue Code is identified in 1 U.S.C. §204 as "prima facie evidence", which means that THE WHOLE THING is nothing but a big statutory presumption. 2. Statutory and judicial presumptions that prejudice or injure constitutional rights are unconstitutional, a violation of due process of law, and a tort, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court has said, "It is not the purpose of the law to penalize frank difference of opinion or innocent errors made despite the [412 U.S. 346, 361] exercise of reasonable care." Spies 317 U.S., at 496 . Degrees of negligence give rise in the tax system to civil penalties. julacUlates v .Bishop,_112 U.S. 346 (1973), Emphasis added]

"It is apparent that a constitutional prohibition cannot be transgressed indirectly by the creation of a statutory presumption any more than it can be violated by direct enactment. The power to create presumptions is not a means of escape from constitutional restrictions." [Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U.S. 219 (1911)

32

Requirement for Consent