Requirement for Consent

law. With them[non-taxpayers] Congress does not assume to deal and they are neither of the subject nor of the

1

object of federal revenue laws.”

2

[Economy Plumbing & Heating v. U.S., 470 F.2d. 585 (1972)]

3

4. When “nontaxpayers” have historically challenged the constitutionality of UNLAWFULLY enforcing provisions of the 4 franchise “contract” called the Internal Revenue Code, Subtitle A against those who never consented to it, federal 5 courts have repeatedly and unlawfully invoked provisions within the contract itself that don’t apply to the litigant as an 6 excuse to circumvent the challenge. For instance, the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. §7421 says that federal courts 7 may not restrain or interfere with the assessment or collection of any “tax”. 8

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 76 > Subchapter B > § 7421 § 7421. Prohibition of suits to restrain assessment or collection

9

10

(a) Tax

11

Except as provided in sections 6015 (e), 6212 (a) and (c), 6213 (a), 6225 (b), 6246 (b), 6330 (e)(1), 6331 (i), 6672 (c), 6694 (c), and 7426 (a) and (b)(1), 7429 (b), and 7436, no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person

12

13

14

is the person against whom such tax was assessed.

15

(b) Liability of transferee or fiduciary

16

No suit shall be maintained in any court for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection (pursuant to

17

the provisions of chapter 71) of —

18

(1) the amount of the liability, at law or in equity, of a transferee of property of a taxpayer in respect of any

19

internal revenue tax, or

20

(2) the amount of the liability of a fiduciary under section 3713 (b) of title 31, United States Code [1] in respect

21

of any such tax.

22

5. In effect, the courts in unlawfully enforcing provisions of the contract against those who are not parties to it are 23 abusing legislatively created sovereign immunity to protect PRIVATE business activity. This is CLEARLY 24 unconstitutional if it injures the Constitutionally guaranteed PRIVATE rights of litigants who are “nontaxpayers” not 25 subject to the “code”/”contract”. 26

The net result of the abuse of sovereign immunity to protect the PRIVATE business activity documented within the Internal 27 Revenue Code, Subtitle A is: 28

1. Involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment. 29 2. Peonage in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1581 and 42 U.S.C. §1994. 30 3. Enticement into slavery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1583. The W-4 says nothing about the fact that it is an “agreement” 31 or contract even though the regulations at 26 C.F.R. §31.3401(a)-3 and statute at 26 U.S.C. §3402(p) identify it as 32 such. If the IRS tells anyone that they HAVE to sign and consent to what is actually a voluntary agreement, they are 33 enticing the person into slavery, and yet the federal courts refuse to hold them accountable for such criminal activity. 34 4. Conspiracy against rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. §241. 35 5. Conflict of interest on the part of federal judges, who are both “taxpayers” subject to the extortion and recipients of 36 benefits and laundered money proceeding from the extortion, in violation of 28 U.S.C. §§144 and 455. 37 6. Racketeering and extortion in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1951. 38 7. Kidnapping in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1201. 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(39) and 26 U.S.C. §7408(d) both allow federal 39 judges to “kidnap” the legal identities of persons subject to the Internal Revenue Code and make them into the 40 equivalent of domiciliaries of the District of Columbia for the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code. By imposing 41 these provisions against parties who do not consent to be “taxpayers” and who are “nontaxpayers” not subject to any 42 provision of the Internal Revenue Code, they are engaging in kidnapping and identity theft. Do you REALLY think 43 the Internal Revenue Code would need provisions like this if the federal government REALLY had jurisdiction within 44 states of the Union to collect income taxes pursuant to Internal Revenue Code, Subtitle A? 45 Judges in federal courts must certainly be aware of all of the above, which is why they positively refuse their constitutional 46 duty to protect your private constitutional rights by admitting that Internal Revenue Code, Subtitle A is “private law” and 47 not “public law”, that only applies to those who consent, and then explaining to the parties to the lawsuit EXACTLY what 48

Requirement for Consent

246 of 396

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

EXHIBIT:________