Requirement for Consent

“compact” or “contract” between us as Sovereigns and our public servants . Here is what the U.S. Supreme Court held 1 about the authority of the government to impair the obligation of such contracts, and in particular the main contract between 2 the sovereign People and their government servants called the Constitution: 3

" Independent of these views, there are many considerations which lead to the conclusion that the power to impair contracts [either the Constitution or the Holy Bible], by direct action to that end, does not exist with the general [federal] government. In the first place, one of the objects of the Constitution, expressed in its preamble, was the establishment of justice, and what that meant in its relations to contracts is not left, as was justly said by the late Chief Justice, in Hepburn v. Griswold, to inference or conjecture. As he observes, at the time the Constitution was undergoing discussion in the convention, the Congress of the Confederation was engaged in framing the ordinance for the government of the Northwestern Territory, in which certain articles of compact were established between the people of the original States and the people of the Territory, for the purpose, as expressed in the instrument, of extending the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty, upon which the States, their laws and constitutions, were erected. By that ordinance it was declared, that, in the just preservation of rights and property, 'no law ought ever to be made, or have force in the said Territory, that shall, in any manner, interfere with or affect private contracts or engagements bona fide and without fraud previously formed. ' The same provision, adds the Chief Justice, found more condensed expression in the prohibition upon the States [in Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution] against impairing the obligation of contracts, which has ever been recognized as an efficient safeguard against injustice; and though the prohibition is not applied in terms to the government of the United States, he expressed the opinion, speaking for himself and the majority of the court at the time, that it was clear 'that those who framed and those who adopted the Constitution intended that the spirit of this prohibition should pervade the entire body of legislation, and that the justice which the Constitution was ordained to establish was not thought by them to be compatible with legislation [or judicial precedent] of an opposite tendency. ' 8 Wall. 623. [99 U.S. 700,

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

765] Similar views are found expressed in the opinions of other judges of this court."

24

[Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U.S. 700 (1878)]

25

Now some people might respond to these observations by saying that since the Internal Revenue Code is not ”positive law”, 26 then the judge is actually preventing a biased trial by keeping discussions of it out of the courtroom. This is partially true, 27 but if the judge either won’t allow the following: 28 1. The Internal Revenue Code to be identified as not having the “force of law” in your specific case. 29 2. The Internal Revenue Code to be correctly lacking the status of legally admissible evidence under the rules of evidence 30 because it is a mere “presumption” that violates constitutional due process of law. 31 3. Other types of real , positive law, such as the Constitution, to be discussed in the courtroom, 32 . . .then he is impairing the right to contract of the sovereign “People” who delegated authority to their government using 33 that positive law. He is also criminally obstructing justice. The only basis for interfering with discussing the Constitution 34 as “law” in a federal courtroom is that: 35

1. Neither party to the suit inhabits areas in a state of the Union where the Constitution applies….AND 36 2. The crime occurred within exclusive federal jurisdiction within a territory or possession of the federal government. 37

In nearly all tax trials, the above false presumptions are invisibly made by both the U.S. attorney prosecutor and the judge. 38 It is made either because of ignorance or because of deliberate malice on the part of the judge. Either way, the resulting tax 39 trial devolves into a witch hunt that is a completely political proceeding that is not founded in any way upon positive law. 40 Don’t believe us? Well then watch the movie on the Family Guardian Website as follows: 41

How to Keep 100% of Your Earnings , Marc Lucas http://famguardian.org/Media/movie.htm

In the above movie, a jurist at a state income tax trial testifies that the judge manipulated the case against a person accused 42 of willful failure to file by preventing the jurists from seeing the law he was accused of violating. She says on tape that this 43 was a tacit admission by the judge that there is no law requiring anyone to pay income tax! 44 Therefore, any judge, whether state or federal, who interferes with discussing the Constitution at a federal tax trial can only 45 justify such action based on a usually false presumption that the accused is a statutory “citizen” under 8 U.S.C. §1401 who 46 does not inhabit the states of the Union and therefore is not a party to the Federal Constitution. It is up to you to understand 47 and challenge all the false presumptions that your federal persecutors are going to make and to challenge them as early on 48 as possible and get them into your administrative record in all your correspondence. Furthermore, also understand that 49 federal tax trials are unique and different from other types of federal trials. We have sat through several other types of trials 50

Requirement for Consent

332 of 396

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

EXHIBIT:________