Requirement for Consent

ratification. Like other voidable contracts, it is valid until it is avoided by the person entitled to avoid it. 76 However, duress in the form of physical compulsion, in which a party is caused to appear to assent when he has no intention of doing so, is generally deemed to render the resulting purported contract void. 77 ”

1

2

3

[American Jurisprudence 2d, Duress, §21 (1999)]

4

9. Present evidence developed in the previous section to prove that: 5 9.1. Information returns were filed against you in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§7206, 7207, and 7434. 6 9.2. Insist that because the information returns were incorrect, the government is demanded to criminally prosecute 7 the submitters of these false information returns pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§7206 and 7207. 8 9.3. That information returns submitted against you are not admissible as evidence because: 9 9.3.1. They are “fruit of a poisonous tree”, which means the fruit of a crime. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 10 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d. 441 (1963). 11 9.3.2. They are excludible under the Hearsay Rule, Federal Rule of Evidence 802 because not signed under 12 penalty of perjury. 13 9.3.3. You are not engaged in a “trade or business”. 14 10. To emphasize that all income taxes are based on “domicile”, which is a voluntary choice, which makes taxes based on 15 them voluntary and avoidable. Then present proof to the court that you don’t maintain a domicile within their 16 jurisdiction and therefore don’t consent to it and are not subject to it. See: 17 Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent , Form #05.002 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm 11. To argue that the Internal Revenue Code is “private law” or “special law” rather than “public law”, which applies only 18 to a very narrow group of people that you are not part of. Then to demand evidence of consent to it as “private law”. 19 This places the burden of proof on the government to prove consent, which they won’t be able to do if you have 20 eliminated all evidence of consent and shown that any that remains was submitted under duress and therefore is not 21 obligatory. This means you are going to have to read it to learn who the IRC applies to and why it doesn’t cover you. 22 You will also need to request a declaratory judgment from the court on which of the two that it is so that they have no 23 option but to address the issue, because they will certainly do their best to avoid it. 24 12. To argue that the Internal Revenue Code only applies to federal officers, “employees”, contractors, benefit recipients, 25 and members of the military and not to the general public. See: 26 Why Your Government is Either a Thief or You are a “Public Officer ” for Income Tax Purposes , Form #05.008 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm 13. To focus on the fact that the Internal Revenue Code, Subtitle A is a tax on voluntary, avoidable, privileged, excise 27 taxable activity called a “trade or business”, and to show that you aren’t involved in it, don’t consent to be involved in 28 it, and that banks and financial institutions are violating the law by filing reports that connect you to it. See our article 29 below: 30 The “ Trade or Business ” Scam , Form #05.001 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm 14. To emphasize the fact that no provision of the Internal Revenue Code may lawfully be enforced against persons in 31 states of the Union without publication of the enforcement provision, whether a statute or implementing regulations, in 32 the Federal Register. See: 33 Federal Enforcement Authority within States of the Union, Form #05.032 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm 15. To demand that the government prove that the section of the Internal Revenue Code they are citing is “positive law”, 34 and to demand that if they can’t, that such “prima facie evidence” should not be admitted into evidence because it is 35 based on presumption and is a violation of due process which prejudices your constitutional rights. We talk about why 36 “presumption” is a violation of due process in our memorandum below: 37 Presumption: Chief Weapon for Unlawfully Enlarging Federal Jurisdiction , Form #05.017 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm 16. To not cite anything from the Internal Revenue Code as authority in any suit, because you are a “nontaxpayer” not 38 subject to it. Only “taxpayers” subject to the Internal Revenue Code can quote it or avail themselves of any benefit 39 from using it. 40

76 Faske v. Gershman, 30 Misc.2d. 442, 215 N.Y.S.2d. 144; Heider v. Unicume, 142 Or. 416, 20 P.2d. 384; Glenney v. Crane (Tex Civ App Houston (1st Dist)), 352 S.W.2d. 773, writ ref n r e (May 16, 1962) 77 Restatement 2d, Contracts §174, stating that if conduct that appears to be a manifestation of assent by a party who does not intend to engage in that conduct is physically compelled by duress, the conduct is not effective as a manifestation of assent.

Requirement for Consent

368 of 396

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

EXHIBIT:________