Chris Hansen Under The Gun

[B Rookard]

In Chris Hansen's book, he says the following:

Originally Posted by Chris Hansen

This means that if such the “person” is a “citizen” under the I.R.C., then they must have been born or incorporated in the federal “United States**”/federal zone, which is limited only to the District of Columbia or U.S. territories. Don’t let the word “citizen” above fool you either, because corporations within law are “citizens” as well and they are “born” at the instant when they are officially “incorporated” ... [Page 5-307]

Of course, the Supreme Court disagrees ... citizens are natural persons.

The term citizens as there used applies only to natural persons, members of the body politic, owing allegiance to the State, not to artificial persons created by the legislature, and possessing only the attributes which the legislature has prescribed.

Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168

***********************************************

But the court answered, that corporations were not citizens within the meaning of this clause; that the term citizens as there used applied only to natural persons, members of the body politic owing allegiance to the State, not to artificial persons created by the legislature and possessing only the attributes which the legislature had prescribed

In re Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36

***********************************************

Natural persons, and they alone, are entitled to the privileges and immunities which Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment secures for 'citizens of the United States.'

Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496

***********************************************

[T]he liberty guaranteed by the 14th Amendment against deprivation without due process of law is the liberty of natural, not artificial, persons.

Western Turf Association v. Greenberg, 204 U.S. 359

Brian,

You are confusing the meaning of "United States" as used in the Constitution and the rulings of the Supreme Court with the meaning of "United States" as used in federal statutes, which are two entirely different things. "United States" in the Constitution means the states of the Union and excludes the federal zone. All the rulings you cite are in that context. "United States" as used in the I.R.C., 26 USC 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) means the District of Columbia and EXCLUDES states of the Union. Please rebut:
Why you are a "national" or a "state national" and not a U.S. citizen

The next thing you are going to try to do is argue the meaning of the word "includes". When you do, please rebut the following:

“Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. A maxim of statutory interpretation meaning that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d 321, 325; Newblock v. Bowles, 170 Okl. 487, 40 P.2d 1097, 1100. Mention of one thing implies exclusion of another. When certain persons or things are specified in a law, contract, or will, an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred. Under this maxim, if statute specifies one exception to a general rule or assumes to specify the effects of a certain provision, other exceptions or effects are excluded.” [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 581]

...and then show me where the States of the Union are explicitly included under Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code. You are trying to exploit ignorance and presumption to destroy the Separation of Powers Doctrine and the liberties that it exists to protect.

"The power to create presumptions is not a means of escape from constitutional restrictions," [New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)]

Chris Hansen

[B Rookard]

Originally Posted by Chris Hansen

Brian,

Section 4 of 53 Stat. 1 says:

The repeal applied to laws in force on that day, not the date the repeal was enacted. An enactment of a repeal doesn't enact the law upon which it is based. Therefore, the repeal included the 1939 code itself as well. The confusing wording of that section is just a clever way for deceitful politicians to disguise the nature of their actions.

Chris

What day was the IRC of 1939 passed? Answer: February 10, 1939.

What laws did they repeal: Answer: Laws in force on January 2, 1939.

Since the IRC of 1939 was not in force on January 2, it could not have been repealed.

I know you want to claim it is "confusing" and "deceitful" ... but really, it's just that you didn't pay attention.

And I'll note that you did not deny that the IRC of 1954 was passed as volume 68A of the Statutes at Large later. Therefore, by your silence you admit that there are revenue laws on the books of the Statutes at Large. What's good for the goose and all ...

[Fed-Up]

Do you care to enlighten the rest of us as to Chris's dweebness??

Originally Posted by Bill Smith

Chris Hansen is a dweeb who works for the government as a programmer, BTW. Shed no tears when he goes down, hard.

[B Rookard]

Originally Posted by Chris Hansen

Brian,

You are confusing the meaning of "United States" as used in the Constitution and the rulings of the Supreme Court with the meaning of "Untied States" as used in federal statutes, which are two entirely different things. "United States" in the Constitution means the states of the Union and excludes the federal zone. All the rulings you cite are in that context. "United States" as used in the I.R.C., 26 USC 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) means the District of Columbia and EXCLUDES states of the Union. Please rebut:
Why you are a "national" or a "state national" and not a U.S. citizen

The next thing you are going to try to do is argue the meaning of the word "includes". When you do, please rebut the following:

...and then show me where the States of the Union are explicitly included under Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code.

Chris Hansen

"In definitive provisions of statutes and other writings, 'include' is frequently, if not generally, used as a word of extension or enlargement rather than as one of limitation or enumeration." - American Surety Co. of New York v. Marotta, 287 US 513

Furthermore, the word "includes" is defined at 7701(c), and so the definition there controls.

Additionally, the rule of statutory construction is just that ... it is not law ....


The position taken by the defendants in error, and sustained by the district court, is, that that extension of particular sections is an implied exclusion of all others. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. We are unable to assent to that position. The maxim invoked expresses a rule of construction, not of substantive law, and serves only as an aid in discovering the legislative intent when that is not otherwise manifest. In such instances it is of deciding importance; in others, not.

U.S. v. Barnes, 222 U.S. 513, 518

***********************************************

The general rule that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of others is subject to exceptions. Like other canons of statutory construction, it is only an aid in the ascertainment of the meaning of the law, and must yield whenever a contrary intention on the part of the lawmaker is apparent. Where a statute contains a grant of power enumerating certain things which may be done and also a general grant of power which, standing alone, would include these things and more, the general grant may be given full effect if the context shows that the enumeration was not intended to be exclusive.

Springer v. Government of Philippine Islands, 277 U.S. 189, 206

***********************************************

The maxim 'expressio unius est exclusio alterius' is an aid to construction not a rule of law. It can never override clear and contrary evidences of Congressional intent.

Neuberger v. Commissioner, 311 U.S. 83, 88



The definition of "United States" in 7701(a) specifically states that it includes only the States and DC.

No tax protestor has ever won saying that that definition doesn't somehow mean that the States of the Union are excluded.

[Fed-Up]

Maybe it is time to start removing bad government officials from office by force.

Originally Posted by iamfreeru2

All the stops are being pulled out to stop the truth from being heard. Corruption abounds in the judiciary and our government. I believe as others here believe and that is government is good. It is those individuals that are in government that are corrupt and our government is full of the corrupted. That is why DC is called the District of Criminals. Chris has an uphill battle for sure.

Brian,

Even if the code had been enacted in 1939, that still doesn't make it positive law, and 1 USC 204 admits that it ISN'T. Your arguments about "includes" are simply moot. Until you can prove that the code containing the definition of the word in question is "positive law", you haven't established that its even worth obeying or interpreting, which proves that it is simply a religion and not a law.

According to Black's, the word "includes" can only have two meanings:
1. In addition to (that which is already identified in a specific section). If this is the case, there must be another section identifying what ELSE is including. If there isn't then the law is void for vagueness because it essentially encourages presumption.
2. Is limited to.

Returning to the notion that all presumption is a religious sin and a violation of due process, please kindly show me where "United States" is specifically defined in Subtitle A I.R.C. to encompass states of the Union. Until that time, you ask me to presume and therefore "sin", to offend my God, and to violate due process.

"The power to create presumptions is not a means of escape from constitutional restrictions," [New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)]

The argument about the 1954 code is rebutted in the earlier post, which has been amended.

Chris Hansen

[B Rookard]

Originally Posted by Chris Hansen

Brian,

Your arguments about "includes" are simply moot. Until you can prove that the code containing the defintion of the word in question is "positive law", you haven't established that its even worth obeying or interpreting, which proves that it is simply a religion and not a law.

Your arguments are simply moot too.

See how easy that is.

Real persuasive isn't it.

Since you could not refute my arguments you therefore accept them as valid.

See how easy that was too!!!!

Looks like I win!!!!

[weishaupt1776]

O.K. Brian, you win :rolleyes:

[B Rookard]

Originally Posted by Chris Hansen

The repeal applied to laws in force on that day, not the date the repeal was enacted.

So you agree that it applied to laws in force on January 2 ... not February 10.

Originally Posted by Chris Hansen

An enactment of a repeal doesn't enact the law upon which it is based. Therefore, the repeal included the 1939 code itself as well.

I dunno where you came up with that, but you should read section 7 now ...

"The enactment of this act shall not repeal nor affect any act of Congress passed since the 2d day of January 1939 ...." http://sedm.org/Exhibits/EX1023.pdf (from your own website too!)

By the way, I notice that you pulled it straight from the Statutes at Large ... which are evidence of the laws.

Uh oh, you screwed up.

Better go back and edit your responses again to make it seem like you didn't screw up.

I notice that every post you posted since we started our little dialogue has been edited. Are you afraid to let your posts stand on their own? Or do you edit them because you know you're caught with your pants down so you take down the offending material?