Fron the case of :
939 F.2d 499
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Lorin G. SLOAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 90-3154.
United States Court of Appeals,
Seventh Circuit.
Argued June 14, 1991.
Decided Aug. 9, 1991.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc
Denied Sept. 10, 1991.
Andrew B. Baker, Jr. (argued), Asst. U.S. Atty., Dyer, Ind., for plaintiff-appellee.
Lorin G. Sloan (argued), pro se.
I Quote from the above case:
“The indictment cited the statute he was accused of violating (26 U.S.C. s 7201) and identified the specific tax (the income tax) he was obligated to pay.”
I am confused! The indictment cited the statute Mr. Sloan was accused of violating as 26 U.S.C. s 7201, if you look below you may see that this is incorrect and a reversible point.
From
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/about.html
NOTE:
Of the 50 titles, only 23 have been enacted into positive (statutory) law. These titles are 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 44, 46, and 49.
When a title of the Code was enacted into positive law, the text of the title became legal evidence of the law. Titles that have not been enacted into positive law are only prima facie evidence of the law. In that case, the Statutes at Large still govern. (emphasis added)
I fail to see Title 26 as a positive or statutory law, so would that not mean the court, the court of appeals, and also the supreme court were all in error? By up holding the internal revenue charges? As they pursued charges that lacked standing? and also achieved a conviction by stating bogus or faults law without stating the Statute at Large that governed the charge(s).
Did they not fail to state a claim inwhich relief could be granted.
On the other hand he did file false documents. Bad, Bad Boy thats a No No No
Glenn