Requirement for Consent

2. Is private law or contract law. All franchises are contracts between the grantor and the grantee that activate upon 1 mutual consent and the receipt of mutual consideration. 2 3. Can lawfully be enforced only against federal “public officers” and federal instrumentalities who are “effectively 3 connected” to U.S. government income if it is enforced at all, and all those serving in this capacity had to consent to 4 serve in that capacity at some point. The reason is because federal public officers basically must observe their 5 employment contract, which includes the implied agreement to pay “kickbacks” to the federal government out of their 6 pay called “income taxes”. These “kickbacks” are recorded and accounted for on a “return”, which is a return of the 7 government’s property to its rightful owner. 8 For all persons other than federal statutory “employees” or “public officers” lawfully engaged in the “trade or business” 9 franchise, the Internal Revenue Code is nothing more than a voluntary contract which each individual must choose for 10 himself or herself whether he or she individually wants the “benefits” of. Those who choose to avail themselves of the 11 “benefits” of this constructive voluntary private “contract” reveal their consent and intent by declaring themselves to be 12 federal “employees” on the IRS Form W-4 or “employers” on an SSA Form SS-4 and submitting it directly to the IRS or 13 indirectly, through their private, non-federal employer. When they elect to avail themselves of this contract, they will be 14 treated by the government in every respect relating to “taxes” like any typical federal “employee”, “instrumentality”, or 15 office, even if they in fact are not, even if they may not lawfully do so, and even if they deny having done so. Note, 16 however, that in the vast majority of cases, those who submit the IRS Forms W-4 or SS-4 had to LIE in order to avail 17 themselves of the contract because there are 280+ million Americans but only about 2,000 elected or appointed federal 18 “employees” who lawfully hold public office. Once they perjure themselves on the W-4 by claiming they are federal 19 “employees” under penalty of perjury, now the government has them trapped because they have given the government 20 court-admissible evidence that they are federal “employees”. If they then later claim they were deceived or tricked in 21 filling out the form, the government can try to blackmail them by saying they committed perjury on the form. Checkmate! 22 Another way to challenge the “roach trap” in court is simply to show that statistically, the statute one is subject to does not 23 “benefit”, but instead harms people and societies. Once you can prove that it isn’t a benefit but in fact a harm to the people, 24 the government loses its ability to enforce its’ contract upon the recipient. The sole purpose of both law and government is 25 to protect and not harm society. Government cannot exceed that boundary no matter what. The Supreme Court explained 26 why this is as follows: 27

“The great principle is this: because the constitution will not permit a state to destroy, it will not permit a law

28

involving the power to destroy.”

29

[ Providence Bank v. Billings , 29 U.S. 514 (1830)]

30

The last point we want to make about “roach trap statutes” or franchises in relation to income taxation is that the U.S. 31 Supreme Court has already held that their main benefit, which is the Social Security and Medicare benefits that go with the 32 payment of income taxes, is NOT, and I repeat NOT, a contract. 33

“We must conclude that a person covered by the Act has not such a right in benefit payments … This is not to say, however, that Congress may exercise its power to modify the statutory scheme free of all constitutional

34

35

restraint.”

36

[Fleming v. Nestor , 363 U.S. 603 (1960)]

37

Therefore, payment by the government of benefits is not contractual, it is discretionary according to the Supreme Court. 38 Where there is no contract, there can be no breach of contract or harm to the benefit recipient. Therefore, payment to the 39 government for these so-called "benefits" through income taxation cannot be contractual either . Equal protection of the 40 laws guaranteed by Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment demands this. Not only that, but anyone who takes out 41 anything more than exactly what they put in, is a THIEF! The Bible says that all such thieves MUST be forced to pay back 42 DOUBLE what they stole to the victims of the theft: 43

"If a man [the government, in this case] delivers to his neighbor [a citizen, in this case] money or articles to keep, and it is stolen out of the man's house [our out of his paycheck], if the thief is found, he shall pay double. If the thief is not found, then the master of the house shall be brought to the judges to see whether he has put his

44

45

46

hand into his neighbor's goods.” [ Exodus 22:7-8 , Bible, NKJV]

47

48

The "victim" of the theft, in this case, are all the "nontaxpayers" who never wanted to participate in this bankrupt 49 humanistic/socialist tax and welfare-state system to begin with. If people cannot lawfully be permitted to take out more 50 than they put in because it would be theft, then why have the socialist program to begin with? All it will do is encourage 51

Requirement for Consent

107 of 396

Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.003, Rev. 7-23-2013

EXHIBIT:________