Someone said that the IRS Code is "code" and not "law." There for it's not binding and has no teeth.  Code IS the same thing as law.  It's like car or auto, father or dad, dime or ten cents, tits or jugs, fucking or banging... get the idea?  

Here's what the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives says on its website:  "The Code is a consolidation and codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States."

Good luck trying to make a legal argument that the federal government has no authority to collect income tax.  Perhaps you can share a cell with Irwin Schiff.

All three men have fallen to the legal sword of "conflict of interest" of which the judges and courts were in fact guilty of.

Irwin's and the others only true folly was bringing their discovered truths to the people by publicizing their findings. Individually their cases weren't worth the cost to prosecute for the IRS; but when they made public their findings of IRS's twisting, manipulating and usurping of law they were forced to go after these individuals like a mother protecting its baby.

 The aforementioned William Drexler (Esq) actually beat the IRS in court proving to a jury of twelve that he (and everyone else on the jury) did not owe an Income tax. The IRS was so enraged that they had the court records forever sealed and then had the Bar association forever disbar Mr Drexler.
Armand Condo was never jailed for willful failure to file or non payment of income taxes. He was prosecuted for ‘Mail fraud’ after 13 members of his income tax protest organization hadn’t the stones to take on the IRS when it threatened them. The IRS intimidated the 13 members into pleading guilty to willful failure to file etc in return for a benign slap on the hand, then the IRS took the pleas to court saying that these convictions were a result of advice being given by Mr Condo using the United States mail to deliver his advice.    

 The government certainly has authority to levee Income taxes; but in a manner prescribed by law, and this is where the IRS and the system has run afoul for many decades.

-- Modified on 10/24/2007 6:35:37 AM

1st, law is what we agree on, right?  I mean, whether we agree by majority rule or at the point of a gun, it's a social consensus, right?  So whether the IRS code was law or not, Congress could change it either way subject to president's veto right?  

OK, glad we've got that straight.

2nd, science is not like that.  Truth is objective and independent of any fucking committee, right?  So scientific shit doesn't matter whether the Pope thinks the sun goes round the moon or vice versa, right?   and scientific stuff like psychiatric diagnoses is reproducible and disprovable, right?

Well, yes, but except for all but the last part.
Psychiatric diagnoses are established by committee vote of the APA.  Look it up.

Funny thing 'bout prove,n the IRS and their system full of shit; it gets buried, edited, lost or deleted jus like tricky Dick's tapes, GW's service / arrest records or Cheney's E-mails.

any court proceeding has a record.  Get me the court & party names, let me try.

All administrative proceedings can be recovered thru FOIA, assuming the parties request & subject to exceptions.

Now I've known shit to disappear from court records, but it's very rare, because it's a good way to get your own cell.

Dick's tapes didn't disappear, only 18 minutes of them, which were obvious by their absence.  GW's service record book is/was there, he just won't release it.  Same with Cheney's e-mails - they're there, you just don't get to see them.

You can find all sorts of things, you just have to be diligent, and judge what you find sensibly.

Congress did not enact the U.S. Code into positive law and errors have been found in the Code.

On April 12, 1926, in the 69th Congress, the House passed H.R. 10000, which would enact
the U.S. Code into positive law and repeal most prior laws in force as of December 7,
1925 (the start of the 69th Congress), but only make it effective after June 30, 1927.
Before that time the Code would be prima facie evidence of the law with enough time,
hopefully, to correct any new errors found. However, because of likely errors in the law,
the Senate amended H.R. 10000 so that it would only be prima facie evidence of the
law. The bill was signed by the President on June 30, 1926 (Pub. L. No. 69-440, 244 Stat.
Part 1). 537 errors were later found and corrected; 88 of them errors of substance.

In other words, a code can be used as a "legal evidence" of the law in most courts, but it is not a Positive Law!


You can find it here...

http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?BoardID=39&SortBy=DateCreated%20desc&Search=i%20have%20a%20question&SearchType=1&Author=anjielina&DayFrom=600&DayTo=0&MessageID=39119&frmSearch=1



-- Modified on 10/24/2007 11:01:12 AM

is for COngress to enact it (ie, a bill) and the President to sign it.

As for any "errors" - what could you mean?  If 554 pairs of eyeballs approve it, it's not an error.  If they don't like what they've done, they change it.  It could happen, you know.

That's like saying, "I didn't mean to sign THAT."  Well, you did, and now that's the fact.  You're still agreed to it until modified.

As for this "positive law", I'll admit, you have me there.  I don't know WTF you're talking about there.

-- Modified on 10/24/2007 11:44:17 AM

"positive" or "non-positive" law usually has little practical significance, as there are very few substantive variances between the texts of statutes as published in the United States Code

"Hallelujah!" was Lloyd L. Long's first comment, after being acquitted, recently, of all "Willful Failure to File" tax charges lodged against him by the Internal Revenue Service for the years 1989 and 1990. How did he do that? No, it wasn't a "miracle." Long did it by bringing before the jury solid, well-documented evidence, acquired from the Research Foundation, and other sources.

Long based his defense on his personal belief that he was not a person required to file Federal income tax returns. Long's war of words was engaged through his attorneys, the nationally-prominent Lowell Becraft of Huntsville, Alabama and Russell J. Leonard of Sewanee, Tennessee, who fought with the most powerful and time-honored weapon available: THE TRUTH!

CLICK ON THE LINK BELOW FOR FULL STORY!!

law is not an issue of fact - though foreign law is sometimes treated as one, I suppose because the judge has no way of knowing it, and isn't responsible for that.

And that is where it can be used as positive or non-positive law

My argument was originally used with the TITLE 26—INTERNAL REVENUE CODE and not the U.S Code. I think that is where Script failed to observe.

-- Modified on 10/24/2007 1:12:04 PM

but I allus thought "code" was a generic term, like "city".

on TER.   Sort of like you play that you actually read posts.

Look up the thread a few posts, where you quote the young lady calling code "evidence of law".

Now tell me what you saw, when you wrote that.  I could be hallucinating, but I'm really interested in your explanation.

The "TRUTH" as you may think it is somewhat different. Yes he did get an acquittal on the charges of not filing a tax return because he believed he was not required to, but only on that charge. It did not, in any way, shape or form absolve him from paying the taxes he owned. He just managed to convince a jury that he really, really believed that the he didn't have to and evaded jail time. That's it.

For those of you unfamilar with his type of defense it's called the Cheek defense. It didn't turn out so well for him.

Re: And that is where it can be used as positive or non-positive law

With your reference to positive and non-positive law, just what exactly is your argument with USC 26?

The GOOD NEWS is that what works for the goose also works for the gander and, if you know how to play the game, you can take back the property which has been stolen from you belonging to government and that of judges, lawyers, banksters and all other evil personages.

I think we've had enough of this debate...I can go on though...LMAO!! If I had bigger Tits, would you agree with me then?

Have you ever heard of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)? Practically no one has ever heard about it, yet it rules the lives of every one of us each and every moment of every day. You can read upon it here http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/ucc.table.html or do a more specific search...

So kings, emperors or legislative bodies acting in sovereign capacity are the "creators" of civil law. When our government acts as a sovereign (oops I hope "sovereign" did not offend you Titman), it is acting outside it's constitutional authority.

I would advise you to look up these definitions "STRAW MAN" and "PERSONA". So you can see that a man and a person are very different terms identifying very different things. (This is relatively connects with UCC and how to avoid the IRS and it's voluntary filling).


I really do hope you're not HOOKED ON PHONICS darling!

Sincerely,

AnjieLina



"The ball game has been changed forever since September 11th. The public hasn't given up their privacy, it's been stolen from them intentionally by the terrorcrats. The problem is that most don't realize this or if they do, they seem to care less." ~ Dr. Walter Hurst

Non-positive law may (permissively) be cited to the U.S.C. provided no "material" variance1 exists from the  Public Law  (published in the  Statutes at Large); however, given such variance, the official law  being the Public Law, citation must, in that event, be to the Statutes at Large. This issue is discussed in somewhat more detail in "Statutes at Large = Official -- U.S.C. = Presumptively Official."

If you read a few articles up, I provided a link. Please pay attention sweetie!





-- Modified on 10/24/2007 11:04:33 PM

philosophical argument?  That the discussion of 'positive law' is philosophy, not law at all?

4 U.S.C. § 72, which is positive law, mandates that all offices of government are restricted to "the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere" unless Congress "expressly" extends their granted authority to other geographical areas by United States law.
"All offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the District
of Columbia, and not elsewhere, except as otherwise expressly provided by
law." 4 U.S.C. § 72 (Emphasis added).

default location of Federal agencies is in DC.

Youtube is not legal authority.  

So what is your theory here?

You might also note that Title 4 sec 3 says that misprinting or mishandling the national flag or colors is a misdemeanor.  You just have to know that's a violation of the 1st amendment and a waste of ink.

IOW, don't go off on the 1st thing that feels right.  Law isn't supposed to feel right, because you aren;t the only person in the world.

I still not sure what your argument is all about yet and what it has to do with taxes, if any. You seem to like to throw links and "cut and pastes" around without tying it together into a coherent argument.

Just more useless shit from the Queen of Cut and Paste. Do you have any original thoughts in your head at all or do zombies live there? If you actually did comprehend what you believe you could write it down in a coherent and organized fashion but you can't, can you? You can't effectively rebut because would take some actual thought and gee that's hard work.

anything in the USC (or any other code) about "positive law" so we can begin to see WTF you think you're talking about.

What the hell do you think 4 usc 72 has to do with taxes? or "positive law"?  or anything?

They mix Gandhi-like civil disobedience with financial gain. Then they are able to fight for what is right-- and get lots of money. Moral stances have seldom met profit so wonderfully. Greed on earth, and heaven in the afterlife.

Funny thing is, the people who sell books to chumps about the illegality of income taxes are compliant themselves. Yet, they make money persuading other people to destroy their own lives with it.

but I like perky ones that stand up & salute.  Don't want no knee-draggers.

Here's a link to a pile of cases pertaining to these things.

A couple of quotes to leave you with:

Coleman v. CIR (7th Cir 1986) 791 F2d 68 at 69:
"Some people believe with great fervor
preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest." [and quoted in several
subsequent court decisions]

and finally from the Cheek decision Justice Blackmun wrote:

It seems to me that we are concerned in this case not with "the complexity of the tax laws," ante, at 200, but with the income tax law in its most elementary and basic aspect: Is a wage earner a taxpayer and are wages income? [ . . . ] [I]t is incomprehensible to me how, in this day, more than 70 years after the institution of our present federal income tax system with the passage of the Revenue Act of 1913, 38 Stat. 166, any taxpayer of competent mentality can assert as his defense to charges of statutory willfulness the proposition that the wage he receives for his labor is not income, irrespective of a cult that says otherwise and advises the gullible to resist income tax collections. One might note in passing that this particular taxpayer, after all, was a licensed pilot for one of our major commercial airlines; he presumably was a person of at least minimum intellectual competence.


-- Modified on 10/25/2007 8:11:45 PM

That I have a Life - that is; when I'm not touring I don't sit around my computer screen on TER all day sweetie!

There are other aspects in my life that I have to attend to!

I will respond to all of your inquiries as my time permits.

BTW...My tits are perky and all around natural cup C

LOL!!