Requirement for Consent

The judicial process we have today for hearing tax cases in federal district courts does not even remotely resemble most of 1 what is listed above. For instance: 2

1. Federal judges commonly treat the Internal Revenue Code as “law” and admit it into evidence at tax trials against 3 “nontaxpayers” who are not subject to it, which is very prejudicial of the rights of the accused. 4 2. Federal judges seldom if ever recuse themselves even though they are “taxpayers” and even though them being 5 “taxpayers” and receiving benefits based on illegal enforcement of Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code creates a 6 conflict of interest in violation of 18 U.S.C. §208. 7 3. Jurors are seldom excused from tax trials because they are either “taxpayers” or are in receipt of benefits derived from 8 income taxes which might create a conflict of interest. This prejudices the rights of the accused in favor of the 9 government. 10 4. Few of the jurors or judges are domiciled or born on federal land that is within the judicial district or Internal Revenue 11 District in question. Consequently, the trial is moot and illegal from the beginning. Many of them said on their jury 12 summons that they are “U.S. citizens”, but the government never defines anywhere exactly what it means to be a “U.S. 13 citizen” in any positive law statute. Consequently, the federal government uses vague laws and the false presumption 14 they generate to induct illegal jurors to serve on federal tax trials. 15 5. The criminal statutes that are being enforced, found in 26 U.S.C. §7201 through 7217 have no implementing 16 regulations published in either the Federal Register or the Code of Federal Regulations, and therefore are 17 unenforceable against anyone but federal “employees”. Likewise, the judge prejudices the rights of the accused by not 18 requiring the government to prove that the accused is a federal employee who is the proper subject of the Internal 19 Revenue Code. 20 6. The federal judge not only doesn’t prevent, but actually encourages false presumption and prejudice by the jury by: 21 6.1. DOJ prosecutors and the judge work as a team to encourage jealousy and contempt in the jurists against the 22 accused by telling them that they are “taxpayers” but “this bozo refuses to pay his fair share!”. 23 6.2. Judges refuse to allow jurists to see the actual laws that the accused is being tried for, because there simply are 24 none in most cases. 25 The above abuses of the legal process are primarily the responsibility of the judge hearing the case. If you want to blame 26 anyone or prosecute anyone for the abuse, prosecute the judge himself as a private individual for exceeding his lawful 27 authority and thereby injuring your rights. All of the above abuses of the legal process are described in the legal dictionary 28 as follows: 29

“ Malicious abuse of legal process . Willfully misapplying court process to obtain object not intended by law. The wilful misuse or misapplication of process to accomplish a purpose not warranted or commanded by the writ. The malicious perversion of a regularly issued process, whereby a result not lawfully or properly obtained on a writ is secured; not including cases where the process was procured maliciously but not abused or misused after its issuance. The employment of process where probable causes exists but where the intent is to secure objects other than those intended by law. Hughes v. Swinehart, D.C.Pa., 376 F.Supp. 650, 652. The tort of “malicious abuse of process” requires a perversion of court process to accomplish some end which the process was not designed to accomplish some end which the process was not designed to accomplish, and does not arise from a regular use of process, even with ulterior motives. Capital Elec. Co. v. Cristaldi, D.C.Md., 157 F.Supp. 646, 648. See also Abuse (Process); Malicious prosecution. Compare Malicious use of process.”

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

[ Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 958]

40

The federal In justice system we have is meant only as a counterfeit that is intended to deceive the people and give them a 41 false sense of security and confidence in our legal system: 42

“GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENT April 15, 2004

43

[Washington, District of Columbia (D.C.)] The federal government announced today that it is changing its

44

emblem from an eagle to a condom, because that more clearly reflects its political stance.

45

A condom stands up to inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of pricks, and

46

gives you a sense of security while it's actually screwing you. ”

47

Consequently, we contend that most federal tax trials are not a judicial or even a lawful proceeding. This is further 48 described in the free Memorandum of law below: 49

Political Jurisdiction , Form #05.004 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

Requirement for Consent

322 of 396

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

EXHIBIT:________