Requirement for Consent

3. Why the Notice of Levy form 668A-c(DO) is missing paragraph (a) of 26 U.S.C. §6331, which states that levies are 1 limited only to elected or appointed officers of the United States government or federal “instrumentalities” such as 2 “public officers". 3 4. An abstract of judgment signed by a judge authorizing the levy or lien of the property of the accused. The “Notice of 4 Levy” and “Notice Of Lien” must meet the requirements of the Fifth Amendment, which requires that all such takings 5 of property must be signed by a judge and be executed ONLY through judicial process. 6 In response to questions of the kind above, the IRS only offers threats, because it can’t demonstrate legal authority. 7 Disinformation of payroll people at private companies is effected mainly through the techniques documented later in 8 section 10.8.8. If you would like to learn how to fight such underhanded intimidation of private companies and financial 9 institutions in the context of withholding, please refer to the free pamphlet below available at: 10

Federal and State Tax Withholding Options for Private Employers, Form #09.001 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

10.8.6

Legal terrorism

11

Those people who expose the illegal and fraudulent dealings of the government relating to income taxes are frequently 12 targeted for endless litigation and terrorism by the government. The nature of litigation is that it is expensive, very time- 13 consuming, and complex. The government institutes what is called “malicious abuse of legal process” to essentially wear 14 down, distract, and plunder their opponents of financial resources. Most Americans are unfamiliar with the legal process, 15 and when falsely accused or litigated against by the government, must hire an expensive attorney. This attorney, who is 16 licensed by the government, becomes just another government prosecutor against them who essentially bilks their assets 17 while cooperating subtly with the government in ensuring a conviction. It doesn’t take long to exhaust the financial 18 resources of the falsely accused American, and so even if there is no money left for the IRS to collect at that point, they 19 have still accomplished the financial punishment that they sought originally. As long as it really hurts financially to not 20 “consent”, then the government will win in the end. 21 We must remember, however, that such an abuse of legal process to effect the equivalent of slavery, is a crime if effected 22 within federal jurisdiction. The government parties who cooperate in such legal terrorism become personally liable for this 23 type of slavery: 24

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 77 > Sec. 1589.

25

Sec. 1589. - Forced labor

26

Whoever knowingly provides or obtains the labor or services of a person -

27

(3) by means of the abuse or threatened abuse of law or the legal process ,

28

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both . If death results from the violation of this section, or if the violation includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or the attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant shall be fined under this title or

29

30

31

imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both

32

The slavery produced by this legal terrorism also violates the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against involuntary 33 servitude and is punishable under 18 U.S.C. § 1994 and 18 U.S.C. § 1581. 34

10.8.7

Coercion of federal judges

35

Since 1918, federal judges sitting in the District and Circuit courts have been subject to IRS extortion and coercion. Since 36 1938, this extortion has enjoyed the blessing of no less than the U.S. Supreme Court. The Revenue Act of 1918, Section 37 213, 40 Stat. 1057, was the first federal law to impose income taxes on federal judges. That act was challenged by federal 38 judges in the case of Miles v. Graham, 268 U.S. 501 (1924) and the judges won. Congress attempted again in the Revenue 39 Act of 1932, Section 22, to do the same thing by much more devious means. Federal judges again challenged the attempt 40 in the case of O’Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277 (1938) , and lost. Since that time, the independence of the federal 41 judiciary on the subject of taxation has been completely compromised. No judge who is subject to IRS extortion can 42 possibly be objective when ruling on an income tax issue. He cannot faithfully and with integrity perform his job without 43 violating 28 U.S.C. §144, 28 U.S.C. §455, and 18 U.S.C. §208. Consequently, the rulings of the federal district and circuit 44

Requirement for Consent

358 of 396

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

EXHIBIT:________