Requirement for Consent

How do we rebut the false “presumption” that the Internal Revenue Code is law using admissible evidence? One way to 1 rebut the fact that the Internal Revenue Code is “law” is to present section 4 of the 1939 Internal Revenue Code itself, 2 located in 53 Stat. 1, and show that the code repealed all prior revenue laws as well as itself, and therefore is unenforceable. 3 You can also present 1 U.S.C. §204 to show that it is not “law” or “positive law”, but is “presumed to be law”. Since all 4 presumption which prejudices Constitutional rights is a violation of due process, then the code cannot be used as a 5 substitute for real positive law evidence. The only reason this wouldn’t work in a court of law is because a tyrant judge 6 with a conflict of interest (in violation of 18 U.S.C. §208 and 28 U.S.C. §455) who is subject to IRS extortion won’t allow 7 such evidence to be admitted at trial because it is too likely to reduce his federal retirement benefits. However, if we put 8 the evidence in our IRS administrative record BEFORE the trial by attaching it to the certified mail correspondence we 9 send them, and keep the original correspondence and the notarized proof that we mailed it, then the corrupt judge can no 10 longer keep it out of evidence and may not grant a motion “in limine” by the Department of Injustice to exclude it as 11 evidence at trial. Our administrative record with the IRS is ALWAYS admissible as evidence. 12 The authority of the IRS is limited to seeing that a proper “return” (kickback) of U.S. Government property (income) is 13 made by Federal Government “employees” and fiduciaries (Trustees) in the name of “tax”. The tax is actually corporate 14 profit that is kicked back to the mother corporation, which is defined as the “United States” in 28 U.S.C. §3002(15)(A). 15 When IRS employees act upon property not within the authority given them by the I.R. Code, they are NOT acting in 16 behalf of the U.S. government and must personally accept the consequences of their illegal actions. 17 IRS employees and government welfare recipients such as tax attorneys have invented a number of specious and false 18 arguments relating to the fact that the Internal Revenue Code is not “positive law”. They will try to exploit your legal 19 ignorance in order to deceive you into thinking that it IS positive law by any one of the following statements. Some have 20 observed these false statements being made by Mr. Rookyard (http://www.geocities.com/b_rookard/) as he was debated 21 him on the Sui Juris Forums (http://suijuris.net). The information below was used to “checkmate” him on each of these 22 issues and thereby exposed his fraud to the large audience there. We have cataloged each false statement and provided a 23 rebuttal you can use against it: 24 1. FALSE STATEMENT #1 : “Everything in the Statutes at Large is ‘positive law’. The IRC was published in the 25 Statutes at Large. Therefore, the Internal Revenue Code MUST be positive law.” 26 2. REBUTTAL TO FALSE STATEMENT #1 : Not everything in the Statutes at Large is “positive law”, in fact. Both 27 the current Social Security Act and the current Internal Revenue Code (the 1986 code) were published in the Statutes at 28 Large and 1 U.S.C. §204 indicate that NEITHER Title 26 (the Internal Revenue Code) nor Title 42 (the Social Security 29 Act) of the U.S. Code are “positive law”. Therefore, this is simply a false statement. If you would like to see the 30 evidence for yourself, here it is: 31 2.1. 1 U.S.C. §204: 32 http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode01/usc_sec_01_00000204----000-.html 33 2.2. 1986 Internal Revenue Code, 100 Stat 2085: 34 http://www.famguardian.org/Disks/LawDVD/Federal/RevenueActs/Revenue%20Act%20of%201986.pdf 35 2.3. Current Social Security Act: http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/comp-toc.htm 36 3. FALSE STATEMENT #2 : “The Statutes at Large, 53 Stat. 1, say the 1939 Internal Revenue Code was ‘enacted’. 37 Anything that is ‘enacted’ is ‘law’. Therefore, the 1939 Internal Revenue Code and all subsequent versions of it 38 MUST be positive law.” 39 4. REBUTTAL TO FALSE STATEMENT #2 : A repeal of a statute can be enacted, and it produces no new “law”. 40 Seeing the word “enacted” in the Statutes of Law does not therefore necessarily imply that new “law” was created. In 41 fact, you can go over both the current version of 1 U.S.C. §204 and all of its predecessors all the way back to 1939 and 42 you will not find a single instance where the Internal Revenue Code has ever been identified as “positive law”. If you 43 think we are wrong, then show us the proof or shut your presumptuous and deceitful mouth. 44 5. FALSE STATEMENT #3 : “The Internal Revenue Code does not need to be ‘positive law’ in order to be enforceable. 45 Federal courts and the I.R.S. call it ‘law’ so it must be ‘law’.” 46 6. REBUTTAL TO FALSE STATEMENT #3 : The federal courts are a foreign jurisdiction with respect to a state 47 national domiciled in his state on land not subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 48 and who has no contracts or fiduciary relationships with the federal government. This is covered extensively in the Tax 49 Fraud Prevention Manual , Form #06.008, Chapter 6. Your statement represents an abuse of case law for political 50 rather than legal purposes as a way to deceive people. Even the IRS’ own Internal Revenue Manual (I.R.M.), Section 51 4.10.7.2.9.8 says that cases below the Supreme Court may not be cited to sustain a position. Furthermore, if you read 52 the cases to which you are referring, you will find out that the party they were talking about was a “taxpayer”. Because 53 the Internal Revenue Code has no liability statute under Subtitle A, then the only way a person can become a 54

Requirement for Consent

288 of 396

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

EXHIBIT:________