Requirement for Consent

7. When you contact them to notify them that you have withdrawn your consent and rescinded your signatures on any 1 forms you filled out, they will LIE to you by telling you that there is no way to quit the program. 2 8. They will remove references to people who don’t consent off their website and from their publications. They will also 3 forbid their employees, through internal policy, from recognizing, helping, or communicating with those who did not 4 consent. For instance, they will refuse to recognize the existence of “nontaxpayers” or people who are not “licensed” 5 or privileged in some way. These people are the equivalent of “aliens” as far as they are concerned. 6 9. When asked about whether the “code” is voluntary, they will lie to you and tell you that it isn’t, and that EVERYONE 7 is obligated to obey it, even though only those who consent in fact are. They will ensure that when they lie to you in 8 this way, they: 9 9.1. Will act stupid so they can protect their plausible deniability and thereby shield themselves from legal liability for 10 their lies. 11 9.2. Will protect their lie with a disclaimer. See: 12 10. They will commit constructive fraud by abusing the rules of statutory construction to include things in definitions that 16 do not appear anywhere within the law in order to make “private law” look like “public law” that applies to everyone. 17 See: 18 Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud , Form #05.014 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm 11. They will ensure that all paperwork that you sign in which you consent hides the fact that it is a contract or agreement. 19 Look at the W-4 form: Do you see any reference to the word “agreement” on it? Well guess what, it’s an agreement 20 and you didn’t even know. The regulations at 26 C.F.R. § 31.3401(a)-3(a) say it’s an “agreement”, which is a contract. 21 Why didn’t your public SERVANTS tell you this? Because they want to fool you into thinking that participation is 22 mandatory and that the Internal Revenue Code is a “public law”, when in fact, it is a “private law” that you must 23 consent to in order to be subject to. 24 The government will play all the above games because deep down, they know their primary duty is to protect you, and that 25 the only people they can really regulate or control are their own “public officers” or “employees” (5 U.S.C. §2105(a)) in 26 the process of protecting you. Therefore, they have to make you LOOK like one of their own employees or agents or 27 contractors in order to get ANY jurisdiction over you. They do this by associating a status with you that is connected to 28 federal employment or office: 29 "IRS Publications, issued by the National Office, explain the law in plain language for taxpayers and their advisors... While a good source of general information, publications should not be cited to sustain a position." 13 14 [Internal Revenue Manual (I.R.M.), Section 4.10.7.2.8 (05-14-1999)] 15

“The power to "legislate generally upon" life, liberty, and property, as opposed to the "power to provide modes of redress" against offensive state action, was "repugnant" to the Constitution. Id., at 15. See also United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214, 218 (1876); United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629, 639 (1883); James v. Bowman, 190 U.S. 127, 139 (1903). Although the specific holdings of these early cases might have been superseded or modified, see, e.g., Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964); United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), their treatment of Congress' §5 power as corrective or preventive, not definitional, has not

30

31

32

33

34

35

been questioned.”

36

[City of Boerne v. Florez, Archbishop of San Antonio, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)]

37

10.2.3

How to know when you are being tricked

38

How can we know this is happening for any given interaction with the government? It’s really quite simple. Let us give 39 you an example. Just about every municipality in the country has a system of higher education. Every one of them charges 40 TWO rates for their tuition: 1. Resident; 2. Nonresident. The Constitution in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment 41 requires “equal protection”, which means EVERYONE, resident or nonresident, is EQUAL under the law. It’s logical to 42 ask: 43

“How can they discriminate against nonresidents by charging them a significantly higher rate of college tuition than residents without violating the equal protection clauses of the Constitution? Why hasn’t someone litigated

44

45

this in court already and fixed this injustice?”

46

The answer is that:

47

1. The municipality has created a PRIVATE corporation under the authority of PRIVATE law. 48

Requirement for Consent

241 of 396

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

EXHIBIT:________