Requirement for Consent

6.3. Due process must return to the courtroom, meaning that ambiguity of the Internal Revenue Code must be 1 eliminated and they must be considerably simplified, so that “experts” are no longer required and so that the 2 general public can easily discern what they mean. This will eliminate the role of ignorance, superstition, and fear 3 in the courtroom that lead to the kind of hysteria present during the witch trials. 4 To help underscore and support assertions made in this section, consider the prosecution of Dr. Phil Roberts, which is 5 described in section 6.8.1 of the Great IRS Hoax , Form #11.302. It provides excerpts from the transcript of his trial for tax 6 evasion in that section. The federal judge kept telling the counsel of the defendant that he couldn’t talk about “the law” in 7 the courtroom during the trial with the jury present. As a matter of fact, he threatened the counsel with disbarment if he 8 continued to insist on quoting the law! By doing so, the judge was accomplishing the following: 9 1. Preventing the jury from learning that the Internal Revenue Code is not “law” for EVERYONE. 10 2. Encouraging superstition, bias, and prejudice on the part of the jury. Absent an objective standard such as enacted 11 positive law, the judge is ensuring that the jury reaches a “political” rather than a “legal” verdict. This makes those 12 convicted of tax crimes into “political prisoners” rather than “criminals”. 13 3. Preventing enforcement of the Constitution, which is law and a contract, by the jury and against the government, in 14 reaching a verdict. Indirectly, this is a violation of the judge’s oath of office to support and defend the Constitution, 15 and amounts to Treason. You can’t in good faith uphold that which you refuse to discuss. 16 4. Ensuring that the result of the trial would be evil and unjust. The Bible says that when “law” is removed from public 17 life, the result will be “abominable”: 18 This is only the tip of the iceberg of courtroom corruption, folks. In 2004, a member also visited a federal district 21 courthouse in San Diego and noted that it had an extensive law library. They walked into the law library as a private citizen 22 to see if they could read the law for ourselves in the books there while serving as a jurist. Remember, this is a PUBLIC 23 building that is PUBLIC, not private property, which any citizen should have access to provided he does not take it or 24 misuse it or interfere with use by others. There was NO ONE in the law library except the clerk. They were intercepted at 25 the door by an inquisitive and nervous clerk, who asked them why they were there. They said they were serving on jury 26 duty and that they wanted to read what the law says for ourselves rather than trust the biased judge or the attorneys. Here is 27 what the clerk in the law library told them, and what she said completely stunned them: 28 1. Federal jurists are NOT allowed to read the law while serving as a jurist. 29 2. Federal jurists are NOT allowed to enter the courthouse law library while serving as jurists. The clerk running the law 30 library is under strict orders from the chief justice NOT to allow jurists into the courthouse law library. When they 31 asked her why that was, she could not explain the reasoning. 32 3. Jurists who read the law while serving can be impeached from serving on the jury. 33 The above statements by the clerk of the district court law library, friends, and the orders from the Chief Justice that lead 34 her to say what she said to them, are not only Treason punishable by death under 18 U.S.C. §2381, but amount to jury 35 tampering in violation 18 U.S.C. §§1503 and 1504. Law is the solemn expression of the will of the “sovereign” within any 36 system of government. 37 “One who turns his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer is an abomination.” 19 [Prov. 28:9, Bible, NKJV] 20

“ Law . . . .That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomenon or actions co-exist or follow each other. Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Guenther, 281 U.S. 34, 50 S.Ct. 165, 74 L.Ed. 683. That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law. Law is a solemn expression of the will of the

38

39

40

41

42

supreme power of the State. Calif.Civil Code, §22. ” [ Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 884]

43

44

The “State” above is “We the People”, and does not include our public servants at all. In our system of government, the 45 “sovereign” is the People both individually and collectively, and is NOT anyone serving in government. Any federal judge 46 who prevents law from being discussed in a courtroom is refusing to recognize the sovereignty of the People who ordained 47 that law, and is interfering with the definition and protection of their sovereign will in courts of justice. All law is a 48 “compact” or a “contract” between the sovereign People and their servants in government. Refusing to discuss tax laws in 49 a court trial is every bit as ludicrous as trying to enforce a contract without the contract. In effect, federal judges who refuse 50 to discuss law in the courtroom are interfering with the right to contract of the sovereign “People”, because law is a 51

Requirement for Consent

331 of 396

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

EXHIBIT:________