Requirement for Consent

of an innocent person goes into the federal treasury by fraud to which a government agent was a party, the United States cannot [lawfully] hold the money or property against the claim of the injured party. 41 ”

1

2

[American Jurisprudence 2d, United States, §45]

3

6. The Social Security Act does not satisfy the “choice of law rules” because the national government has no equitable 4 “property interest” in the matter under consideration pursuant to Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the United States 5 Constitution and all property of the defendant (you) is therefore ENTIRELY AND EXCLUSIVELY PRIVATE 6 property beyond the civil control of the government. 7 7. The party is a “nonresident” and not a statutory “resident”, “alien”, or “citizen” under the franchise contract, 8 agreement, or compact. 9 8. It constitutes CRIMINAL “simulation of legal process” to enforce the Social Security Act against the party in any 10 court. 11

“A person commits the offense of simulating legal process if he or she “recklessly causes to be delivered to another any document that simulates a summons, complaint, judgment, or other court process with the intent to . . . cause another to submit to the putative authority of the document; or take any action or refrain from taking any action in response to the document, in compliance with the document, or on the basis of the document.”

12

13

14

15

[Texas Penal Code Annotated, § 32.48(a)(2)]

16

9. Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 legislative franchise courts such as U.S. District Courts may not lawfully hear the 17 disputes involving such parties. Only CONSTITUTIONAL courts under Article III of the Constitution in which both 18 the judge and jury do not participate in the franchise and have no financial conflict of interest in the matter may hear 19 the case. See: 20 Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises , Form #05.030, Section 16 http://sedm.org/Exhibits/ExhibitIndex.htm

The same arguments apply to Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code, which is the individual income tax and behaves as a 21 franchise contract, or what the U.S. Supreme Court calls a “quasi - contract” 42 : 22

1. The Declaration of Independence, which is organic law, says that the rights of those protected by the Constitution are 23 “unalienable”, which means that they cannot lawfully be sold, bargained away, or transferred through any commercial 24 process, including that of a franchise: 25

“Unalienable. Inalienable; incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.”

26

[ Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1693]

27

The consequence of “alienating” a constitutional right is that you in fact become a “resident alien” under a franchise 28 contract. The IRS Form 1040, for instance, is ONLY for use by “resident aliens”. 29 2. Only certain selected groups of people are even lawfully allowed to consent to the provisions of the code under Subtitle 30 A. Nearly all of these people hold a “public office” in the United States government and are engaged in a “trade or 31 business”, which is a privileged, regulated, and taxable activity. 32 3. Those who consented to the Internal Revenue Code by procuring the privilege of taking any kind of deductions or 33 credits under 26 U.S.C. Sections 32 or 162 or who signed a “contract” called a W-4 or a 1040 become subject to its 34 provisions. 35 4. Those subject to the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code are defined as statutory “taxpayers” in 26 U.S.C. 36 §7701(a)(14) under the franchise and they must comply with ALL of its provisions, including the criminal provisions. 37 5. Those in states of the Union who never explicitly consented and CANNOT lawfully consent to be subject to the 38 Internal Revenue Code because protected by the Constitution and unable to “alienate” their rights in relation to a real 39 de jure government are called “nontaxpayers”. For them: 40 5.1. Its provisions are not “law” and are irrelevant. 41 5.2. They may not be the target of IRS enforcement actions. 42 5.3. All IRS notices directed at “taxpayers” may not be sent to them. 43 6. A government which wants to STEAL your money through fraud will try to hide the mandatory requirement for 44 consent so that you falsely believe compliance is mandatory: 45 6.1. They will try to make the process of consenting “invisible” and keep you unaware that you are consenting. 46

41 Bull v. United States, 295 US 247, 79 L Ed 1421, 55 S Ct 695, 35-1 USTC ¶ 9346, 15 AFTR 1069; United States v. State Bank, 96 US 30, 96 Otto 30, 24 L Ed 647.

42 See Milwaukee v. White, 296 U.S. 268 (1935).

Requirement for Consent

214 of 396

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

EXHIBIT:________