Requirement for Consent

[United States House of Representatives Office of the Law Revision Counsel;

1

SOURCE: http://uscode.house.gov/about/info.shtml]

2

It will therefore be observed that title 26 is not an enacted title, either when it was first codified in 1939 or in any enactment 3 since. 4

If you would like to see a history of the genesis of each section of the current Internal Revenue Code published by the U.S. 5 government, see the following: 6

Derivations of Code Sections of the Internal Revenue Codes of 1939 and 1954 , Litigation Tool #09.007 http://sedm.org/Litigation/LitIndex.htm

Finally, if you would like exhaustive proof of how the Internal Revenue Code has been used to create a state-sponsored 7 religion in which “presumption” acts as a substitute for religious faith, and the object of worship is the government rather 8 than the true and living God, see: 9

Socialism: The New American Civil Religion , Form #05.016 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

10.6.2 The Internal Revenue Code is not public law or positive law, but private law that only applies to those who 10 individually consent 11

You can find a list of specific titles of the U.S. Code that are positive law by examining 1 U.S.C. §204. In addition, each 12 Title of the U.S. Code indicates whether or not it contains positive law. As an example, Title One, General provisions, 13 starts out with: 14

“This title has been made positive law by section 1 of the act of July 30, 1947, ch. 388, 61 Stat. 633, which provided in part that: ‘Title 1 of the United States Code entitled ‘General Provisions,’ is codified and enacted

15

16

into positive law and may be cited as ‘1 U.S.C. Sec….’”

17

Whereas Title 26 makes no statement that it is positive law. Congress just says that I.R. Codes were “enacted” and how 18 they may be cited, but never explicitly says they are “positive law”. That means they don’t obligate you to anything 19 without your explicit consent in some form. In that sense, they are “private law” and amount essentially to a contract for 20 federal employment. 21

No reference to the I.R. Code being positive law either in 1 U.S.C. § 204 or in the “Title” itself confirms that it is “private 22 law” that applies to specific “persons” rather than “all persons generally”. 23

“The foregoing considerations would lead, in case of doubt, to a construction of any statute as intended to be confined in its operation and effect to the territorial limits over which the lawmaker has general and legitimate power. 'All legislation is prima facie territorial.' Ex parte Blain, L. R. 12 Ch. Div. 522, 528; State v. Carter, 27 N.J.L. 499; People v. Merrill, 2 Park. Crim. Rep. 590, 596. Words having universal scope, such as 'every contract in restraint of trade,' 'every person who shall monopolize,' etc., will be taken, as a matter of course, to mean only everyone subject to such legislation, not all that the legislator subsequently may be able to catch. In the case of the present statute, the improbability of the United States attempting to make acts done in Panama or Costa Rica criminal is obvious, yet the law begins by making criminal the acts for which it gives a right to sue. We think it entirely plain that what the defendant did in Panama or Costa Rica is not within the scope of the statute so far as the present suit is concerned. Other objections of a serious nature are urged, but

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

need not be discussed.”

34

[American Banana Co. v. U.S. Fruit, 213 U.S. 347 at 357-358]

35

“The law of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national

36

37

government.”

38

[Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 211 (March 5, 1894)]

39

These specific “persons” are public officers who chose to become “effectively connected” with the U.S. Government 40 income. All such “persons” and “individuals” are employees, instrumentalities, agencies within the U.S. Government. 41 They cannot be private parties because the Supreme Court has held that the ability to regulate private conduct is “repugnant 42 to the Constitution”: 43

Requirement for Consent

285 of 396

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

EXHIBIT:________