Requirement for Consent

must show that he can recover damages for violations stemming from defendants' alleged unconstitutional activity. Plaintiff can obtain damages against the defendants under only one of two theories: a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671-2680; or an implied cause of action under the principles of Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d. 619 (1971). As will be discussed more fully in the next section of this order, a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act will fail on principles of sovereign immunity . Furthermore, in Seibert v. Baptist, 594 F.2d. 423, 429-32 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 918, 100 S.Ct. 1851, 64 L.Ed.2d. 271 (1980), the court refused to recognize a Bivens-type cause of action against the IRS and IRS officials and agents. The actions of the present defendants in assessing the taxes and penalties against the plaintiff and in generally operating under the IRS regulatory framework were not of the outrageous nature of those found in Bivens. This court agrees with the Seibert court and refuses to recognize a Bivens-type cause of action against the IRS or IRS officials and agents for the collection and assessment of taxes. Thus, while a federal question may exist, it provides no basis for plaintiff to recover damages. As such, § 1331 cannot provide this court with jurisdiction over plaintiff's damage claim.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

[Young v. IRS, 596 F.Supp. 141 (N.D.Ind 09/25/1984)]

14

Below is how one of our members describes the income tax fraud in his pleadings before federal courts which emphasizes 15 and reinforces everything we have said in this pamphlet: 16

I am a reasonable person, but my religious beliefs do NOT permit me to participate in a state-sponsored civil religion of the kind created in this courtroom. I recognize this proceeding not as a legal war, but a spiritual

17

18

war.

19

“ For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age,[a] against spiritual hosts of

20

21

wickedness in the heavenly places. ”

22

[Eph. 6:12, Bible, NKJV]

23

This is a worship service, the court is the church, the Internal Revenue Code is the state-sponsored Bible, and it is nothing but a presumption that is not positive law. ______________[U.S. attorney name] is the state licensed and “ordained” deacon who is conducting this particular worship service. He was “ordained” by the chief priests of the ________[state name] Supreme Court. This religion is a Civil Religion, and it is based on glorifying and empowering man and governments made up of men instead of the true and living God. Of this

24

25

26

27

28

subject, the Bible says and requires the following:

29

“It is better to trust the Lord Than to put confidence in man. It is better to trust in the Lord

30

31

32

Than to put confidence in princes [or government, or the ‘state’].”

33

[ Psalm 118:8-9 , Bible, NKJV]

34

The Internal Revenue Code regulates the tithes to this state-sponsored church. Those who want to voluntarily join this government church simply choose a domicile within the “United States”, which is the District of Columbia, and thereby shift their allegiance from God to a political ruler, thus FIRING God from their life. The “faith” practiced by this civil religion is called “presumption”. People who practice this satanic religion are motivated primarily by fear rather than love for their God or their neighbor. Those who are members of this church are called “U.S. persons”, “taxpayers”, and “public officers” who are acting in a representative capacity not of the true and living God, but a pagan, socialist, money-grubbing politician whose only concern is expanding and aggrandizing his own vain importance. What the Plaintiff is attempting to do in this case is destroy and discredit a competing religion, Christianity, in order to elevate his religion to top, and he is doing it in violation of the First Amendment. He has done so by refusing to recognize a religion for what it is, by turning its parishioners into “customers”, and by reclassifying its beliefs to make them into factual commercial speech in violation of the First Amendment. There is no stare decisis that could or does permit this malicious attempt to dis-establish a religion by the Plaintiff. His presence here is an immune response to a competing

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

religion. On this subject, Rousas Rushdoony has said:

48

“. . .there can be no tolerance in a law-system for another religion. Toleration is a device used to introduce a new law-system as a prelude to a new intolerance. Legal positivism, a humanistic faith, has been savage in its hostility to the Biblical law-system and has claimed to be an "open" system. But Cohen, by no means a Christian, has aptly described the logical positivists as "nihilists" and their faith as "nihilistic absolutism." [3] Every law-system must maintain its existence by hostility to every other law-system and to alien

49

50

51

52

53

54

religious foundations or else it commits suicide. ”

55

[The Institutes of Biblical Law, Rousas John Rushdoony, The Craig Press, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 72-79485,1973, pp. 4-5, Emphasis added]

56

57

I cannot condone the abuse of the machinery of this state-sponsored church and tribunal to allow the government to promote and expand a civil religion of the kind clearly demonstrated here today. The only law I can or will recognize is God’s Law found in THIS BOOK (hold up the bible). By that Sovereign and Eternal Law, I cannot lawfully participate as a “citizen” or “domiciliary” of this corrupted forum, be subject to any

58

59

60

61

Requirement for Consent

370 of 396

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

EXHIBIT:________