Requirement for Consent

wrongdoing from getting in the hands of the public. Some people who have requested this document under the Freedom of 1 Information Act (F.O.I.A.) from the IRS, got the unbelievable response below: 2

“We are sorry, but under the war on terrorism, the information you requested is not available for release

3

because it would jeopardize the security of the United States government.”

4

What the heck does the meaning of the codes in a persons’ IRS records have to do with the war on terrorism? The war on 5 terror is being used as an excuse to make our own government into a terrorist organization! The needs of the public and the 6 need for an accountable government that obeys the Constitution far outweigh such lame excuses by the IRS that have the 7 effect of obstructing justice and protecting wrongdoers in the IRS. Such criminal acts of concealment are also illegal under 8 the following statutes: 9

1. 2. 3.

18 U.S.C. §3: Accessory after the fact 18 U.S.C. §4: Misprision of felony 18 U.S.C. Chapter 73: Obstruction of justice

10

11

12

4. 18 U.S.C. §241: Conspiracy against rights under

13

Since the IRS Document 6209 is effectively no longer available through the Freedom of Information Act (F.O.I.A.), then if 14 a person wanted a full and complete and uncensored version of the document from the government they would then have to 15 file a disclosure lawsuit against the government for not complying with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 16 (F.O.I.A.). Lawsuits, lawyers, and litigation are costly, inconvenient, and demanding and therefore beyond the reach and 17 affordability of the average busy American. Consequently, the government wins in its effort to block from public 18 disclosure key information about its own wrongdoing. The result is that by bending the rules slightly, they in effect make it 19 so costly, inconvenient, exasperating, and complicated to have an accountable and law-abiding government that few people 20 will attempt to overcome the illegal barrier they have created. The few that do overcome this barrier then have to worry 21 about finding an attorney who is brave enough to get his license to practice law pulled by the government he is litigating 22 against for prosecuting such government wrongdoers. The system we have now is very devious and prejudicial and needs 23 to be reformed. 24 When your rights have been violated because a government agency or employee has tried to do something without your 27 explicit, informed consent, then the clerk at the government agency who instituted the wrong will further obstruct redress of 28 grievances as follows: 29 1. They will tell you that they can’t give you information about their supervisor to lodge a complaint, and this is 30 especially true if you did not get their full legal name because they refused to give it to you. 31 2. They will say that this is an issue or problem that you must contact the “legal department” or “public affairs 32 department” about. Then they will tell you that those organizations do not take direct calls and insist that everything 33 must be in writing. They will not explain why, but the implications are obvious: They want to prevent spilling the 34 beans and prevent further contact with themselves or their supervisors so they cannot be prosecuted for wrongdoing. 35 3. Then when you write the address the clerk gave you, most often the legal department will ignore it entirely or respond 36 with a lame form letter that answers questions you never asked and doesn’t directly address any of the major issues you 37 raised. This leaves you with no further recourse but to litigate, and they do it this way on purpose because they know 38 most people won’t litigate and can’t afford the time or expense to do so. Checkmate. The government got what it 39 wanted: a violation of your rights without legal or material consequence for the violation. 40 Those Americans who are familiar with the above process and the abuses it results in and who are more familiar with legal 41 procedure can still use the above process to their advantage with a procedure we call the Notary Certificate of Default 42 Method (NCDM), whereby the correspondence sent to the legal department establishes what you expect, provides 43 exhaustive evidence of government wrongdoing, formats the complaint as what is called an “Admissions” in the legal field, 44 gives the government a specific time period to respond, and states that failure to respond constitutes an affirmative 45 admission to every question. They then send in their complaint to the legal department or “Taxpayer Advocate ” via 46 certified mail with a proof of mailing, which then develops legal evidence of what was sent and when it was sent. This 47 approach gives them admissible evidence they can use in court to litigate against the government. You can read more about 48 the Notary Certificate of Default Method in: 49 10.7.6 Ignoring correspondence and/or forcing all complaints through an unresponsive legal support staff that 25 exasperates and terrorizes “customers” 26

Requirement for Consent

348 of 396

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

EXHIBIT:________