Requirement for Consent

[Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742 (1970)]

1

"The question of a waiver of a federally guaranteed constitutional right is, of course, a federal question controlled by federal law. There is a presumption against the waiver of constitutional rights, see, e.g. Glasser v. United States, 314 U.S. 60, 70-71, 86 L.Ed. 680, 699, 62 S.Ct. 457, and for a waiver to be effective it must be clearly established that there was an 'intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.'

2

3

4

5

Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464, 82 L.Ed. 1461, 1466, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 146 A.L.R. 357."

6

[Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U.S. 1, 86 S.Ct. 1245, 16 L.Ed.2d. 314 (1966)]

7

6. The decision to accept the terms of the Internal Revenue Code franchise contract also involved fraud on the part of the 8 government. The employees of the IRS who directly or indirectly influenced you to make the decision to accept the 9 contract also never fully disclosed to you that they had no authority to enforce the Internal Revenue Code to begin 10 within the place you physically are. If they never had authority to enforce the Internal Revenue Code against a private 11 citizen who is not employed by the federal government, then they couldn’t offer to stop doing that which they were 12 never authorized to do to begin with! Therefore, they deceived you to believe that they really were giving you 13 something of value (a “benefit” or “consideration”) that they had the legal authority to provide, which is the absence of 14 lawful enforcement actions directed against you. In effect, they convinced you to pay for something that they didn’t 15 have the legal authority to provide to begin with! It’s all based on fraud. 16

Unquestionably, the concealment of material facts that one is, under the circumstances, bound to disclose may constitute actionable fraud. 3 Indeed, one of the fundamental tenets of the Anglo-American law of fraud is that fraud may be committed by a suppression of the truth (suppressio veri) as well as by the suggestion of falsehood (suggestio falsi). 4 It is, therefore, equally competent for a court to relieve against fraud whether it is committed

17

18

19

20

by suppression of the truth – that is, by concealment – or by suggestion of falsehood. 5

21

[…]

22

Where failure to disclose a material fact is calculated to induce a false belief, the distinction between

23

concealment and affirmative misrepresentation is tenuous. Both are fraudulent. 11

An active concealment

24

has the same force and effect as a representation which is positive in form . 12 The one acts negatively, the other positively; both are calculated, in different ways, to produce the same result. 13 The former, as well as the latter, is a violation of the principles of good faith. It proceeds from the same motives and is attended with the same consequences; 14 and the deception and injury may be as great in the one case as in the other.

25

26

27

28

[37 American Jurisprudence 2d, Fraud and Deceit, §144 (1999)]

29

_________________________________________________________________________________________

30

“ Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts.

Indeed, the principle is often stated, in broad and

31

sweeping language, that fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments. 8 Fraud, as it is sometimes said, vitiates every act, which statement embodies a thoroughly sound doctrine when it is properly applied to the subject matter in contract notwithstanding that it contains a provision to the effect that no representations have been made as an inducement to enter into it, or that either party shall be bound by any representation not contained therein, or a similar provision attempting to nullify extraneous representations. Such provisions do not, in most controversy and to the parties thereto and in a proper forum. As a general rule, fraud will vitiate a

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

jurisdictions, preclude a charge of fraud based on oral representations.” [37 American Jurisprudence 2d, Fraud and Deceit, §144 (1999)]

39

40

Since the people living in the states never enacted the Internal Revenue Code into “positive law”, then they as the 41 “sovereigns” in our system of government never consented to enforce it upon themselves collectively. “Positive law” is the 42 only evidence that the people ever explicitly consented to enforcement actions by their government, because legislation can 43 only become positive law by a majority of the representatives of the sovereign people voting (consenting) to enact the law. 44 Since the people never consented, then the “code” cannot be enforced against the general public. The Declaration of 45 Independence says that all just powers of government derive from the “consent” of the governed. Anything not consensual 46 is, ipso facto, unjust by implication. In fact, the sovereign People REPEALED, not ENACTED the Internal Revenue Code. 47 It has been nothing but a repealed law since 1939, in fact. An examination of the Statutes at Large, 53 Stat. 1, Section 4, 48 reveals that the Internal Revenue Code and all prior revenue laws were REPEALED. See: 49

SEDM Exhibit #05.027 http://sedm.org/Exhibits/ExhibitIndex.htm

Even state legislatures recognize that the Internal Revenue Code is not law. Below is a cite from the Oregon Revised 50 Statutes (ORS), section 316.012, which refers to the Internal Revenue Code. Notice below the use of the phrase “ laws of 51

Requirement for Consent

290 of 396

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

EXHIBIT:________