Law of Consent (1 of 1)

3. Organic law in the Declaration of Independence FORBIDS us to "alienate" our constitutional rights in relation to a real government by describing those rights as "inalienable", which in turn means that they cannot be sold, bargained away, or transferred by ANY process, including a commercial franchise offered by said government:

"Unalienable. Inalienable; incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred." [Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 16931

The net result of this provision is that: 3.1. WE HAVE NO AUTHORITY to contract away rights protected by the constitution in relation to a real, de jure government. 3.2. Even signing a government form giving away rights may not be construed as "agreement", because it is a product of error, and error renders consent VOID, according to the definitions earlier. 3.3. Those who contract with the government must be domiciled on the governments territory, and that federal territory may not be protected by the Constitution, so that they have no rights to "alien" and therefore the organic law is not violated in the process of contracting with the government. The way the government avoids this limitation is by deceiving people into falsely declaring themselves to be a statutory "U.S. citizen" domiciled on federal territory pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1401. 4. The only thing that can turn a presumption into a fact is YOUR CONSENT prescribed ONLY in the manner that YOU and not THEY prescribe, since you are the party consenting. This is entirely consistent with the fact that the I.R.C. is a private law franchise and an excise that hinges on your consent to act as a public officer within the U.S. government on loan to the parties you are doing business with. Before a contract is signed, it is not law. After it is signed, it becomes legal evidence and "law". 5. Federal courts are FORBIDDEN by the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. §2201(a), from declaring your status in the context of taxes. Hence, they cannot bestow the status of "taxpayer" against you without your consent. They also therefore cannot do indirectly what they cannot do directly, but ASSUMING you are one or CALLING you one. This is another way of saying that YOU are the "customer" of their protection racket, and the customer is ALWAYS right. YOU must volunteer for the public office in the U.S. government called "taxpayer" and if they don't protect your right not to volunteer, they are engaging in involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment. You have an unalienable right to contract and to associate or disassociate, and the status YOU CHOOSE for yourself is how you exercise that right. Nearly all government law is, in fact, a civil franchise, and all franchises are contracts. Contracts requires mutual willfulness between parties. Now by using the word willful, the federal government lays the foundation for considering whether you could willfully fail to file, willfully fail to perform a known, and consented to, legal duty (they beg the question by introducing earlier tax returns as evidence of consent, but it's only evidence of agreement obtained by fraud and duress). You would have had to give willful consent (not mere agreement which can be made under fraud and duress) to be a filer in the first place. You would have consented to being a taxpayer, you would have had a concurrence of wills on that point. But, you can never give your consent under fraudulent representations or under duress...even if you're happy to agree to pay "your fair share." The best you could do, because of the fraud involved, would be to agree without consent. Just as a man might agree to turn over his wallet to an assailant with a knife, the duress prevents consent. There is no concurrence of wills or meeting of minds. Now, when you sign under penalty of perjury, a form which contains words of art, words that do not have an agreed upon meaning between the presenter of the form, the IRS, and the signer of the form, the alleged taxpayer, can you give your consent, an act of your will, on that form? Can two wills concur, two minds meet, when the terms are made up of words that lead to different understanding? If the 'legal duty' to file a tax return used words that had two opposite meanings, one a common law meaning and the other a legal definition that contradicted the common law meaning, and the legal meaning was not stated as such, could one ever willfully sign such a tax return, give their consent to a "Known" legal duty? If there was no consent in the first place to a known legal duty, could you withdraw that consent by WILLFULLY failing to file a document inherently deceptive, such as a 1040 form? You would not have offended against a concurrence of wills because the IRS understands one thing by its words and the alleged taxpayer another. There was no concurrence of wills, no meeting of minds. So you couldn't have "failed" and willfully failed, to carry out a consented to legal duty. Since there was no willful consent, because of fraudulent words of art and duress, the fear of IRS penalties and reprisal, there cannot be willful non-consent, or withdrawal of consent, to file.

Requirement for Consent

33