Cracking The Code is Successful!

[Ice]

Those asking: "Is it law?" might want to take a look at the docs posted HERE.

[mnchicago]

Okay...I just fininshed going through 19 pages of this
somewhat tedious, uninforming thread.

I chose to focus in on some of AndyK's comments, in italics,
with my response following.


4/24/06 CTC AndyK

All you have to do is look at the first sentence: "If any person
liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the
same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be
lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax ... by levy
upon all property and rights to property ... belonging to
such person or on which there is a lien provided in this
chapter for the payment of such tax."

Any person

There is nothing hidden, no secrets, no deception.

I disagree about the "no deception," Andy. You are
choosing to focus on Any person, when the true
focus is on any person liable.. Again, one has to be
liable to have any part of the code be applicable.

Who is liable?

Why a taxpayer, of course.

Who is a taxpayer?

According to the code, a taxpayer is one who is liable.

---
If I were to cite the appropriate sections of 26USC,
would you accept them or claim:

Will you even consider what I post or have you aleady
decided to reject it?


Interesting, Andy, that you challenge someone's implied
lack of willingness to accept one of your ideas when you
have totally rejected my challenge to you on another
thread.

What is the expression? What is good for the goose.....

----
CONTRACT, remember? It's all about CONTRACTS.

How right you are, once again. If one does not have a
signed "contract" with the IRS, one is not a taxpayer
as defined by the code.

----
2 May: I have a challenge for anyone who wants to try
it: Show me a win.

Show me a single instance where someone has avoided
paying income taxes based on anything out of the vast
arsenal of tax honesty facts, theories, or techniques.
Other than Kuglin, Long, Cheek, and a couple of others
avoiding jail terms; who has actually won and not had to
pay the taxes?

Andy, I believe I have given you some honest tax facts,
not "theories," not "techniques", no tricks or deception.

I do not know who the three gentlemen are to whom you
refer, but I ,for one, ain't paying no taxes.

Now, I am not dogging you, for you have not shown me
any substance, to date, beyond quoting a dizzying array
of tax "laws," "code sections," ad nauseam. I was actually
reading this thread out of curiousity, and saw some of your
posts.

Your posts, cited, are not really taken out of context.
Each pretty much stands on its own without having to
reference the related posts.

I guess the reason why you persist on your belief that
you are "setting the record straight" with your "inviolable"
input citing the party line to those poor saps on this
thread who, in your estimation, know no better.

Were it could be that they see it your way, then all would
be well with your world.

In truth, I agree with all the IRS rules/regs that you
religiously cant. (Not to confuse with can't). Every
taxpayer would do well to heed them rules.

In truth, you are unable to digest and accept another
reality. All those rules/regs only apply to taxpayers,
and no one else.

For the life of me, I do not see why many here find you
so irritating. So far, I find you quite harmless, even when
you resort to sarcasm and pettiness.

[mnchicago]

David Merrill:

Your ignore button seems not to be working.

Cheers!

[mrg]

Originally Posted by AndyK
No. It's not worth my time to try to explain something (for a third time) to someone who refuses to understand the difference between a saying and a law.

What is it here, that makes it so compeling that you do, in fact, "waste" so much of your time, trying to "explain" some "thing" to some "one" whom you presume "refuses to understand" some "opinion" you tender, presumably to persuade, by presumption, to constitute fact of immutable law?

The guns that back your de facto regime, are fact.

I asked before, why are you here?

Is this it:




You "try to explain" nothing; your opinion attempts to presume ersatz into record and posit it as truth in fact.

I refuse to under-stand presumption, and propaganda.

I comprehend the necessity underlying your deceit.

Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 :

Maxim \Max"im\, n. [F. maxime, L. maxima (sc. sententia), the greatest sentence, proposition, or axiom, i. e., of the greatest weight or authority

Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed
(1856):

MAXIM. An established principle or proposition.

A principle of law universally admitted, as being just and consonant with reason.

Inferior tribunals, being inferior, are not likely wont to take notice "of the greatest weight or authority," and defer to "will" rather than significant "rule of action."

Inferior tribunals are with-out "principle," and are insulated from the strictures of "reason" by self proclaimed "immunity," and demonstrate willful denial of "the greatest sentence, proposition, or axiom...of the greatest weight or authority," and "principle" of "rule of action" to favor "controlling force; irresistable compulsion; a power or impulse so great that it admits no choice of conduct.

Article III vests judicial Power in "one supreme Court."

"The Supreme Court" is titled as an inferior executive tribunal.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by mnchicago

David Merrill:

Your ignore button seems not to be working.

Cheers!

To the contrary; the Ignore List works better than I had anticipated. I am supposing that to be what you are saying. You go through and I end up reading AndyK anyway but only the snippets you think important enough to comment about.

So far, I find you quite harmless, even when
you resort to sarcasm and pettiness.

From all the research I did on Quatloos I know of nothing from AndyK but sarcasm and pettiness. And as far as being harmless, one must keep in mind that he is not formally trained as an attorney, he just parrots the Party Line of collecting debt action in assumpsit - the assumption being as you point out that all people are persons liable under the code to be Taxpayers.

You understanding that of course, causes you to see AndyK as quite harmless. Very well; I agree to a point. The general psychological profile of the Quatloser is important to comprehend properly under the doctrine of keeping enemies closer. AndyK being a self-appointed tax scam expert is just not worth the chance that I will become curious enough to bother reading, and that he might prod me into a direct reply or heaven forbid, a defense.

http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/tim...strategy-1.jpg
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/tim...strategy-2.jpg


Regards,

David Merrill.

P.S. Mrg; excellent post. That point about The Supreme Court is quite worth pondering.

[mnchicago]

From my post above:

I guess the reason why you persist on your belief that
you are "setting the record straight" with your "inviolable"
input citing the party line to those poor saps on this
thread who, in your estimation, know no better.

It would be better if I were to write in a complete
sentence. I left out the verb "is."

How Clintonesque.

----
David Merrill:

We do not know each other, and even a simple sentence
can easily be misconstrued. I was kidding, after seeing
all the "warnings" and "you are on my ignore list,"
responses still appear, even as a snippet.

You got my drift; no explanation was needed.

Cheers!

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by hardtoremember

Please be more clear in your answer... teach me.

is it an AFFIRMED statute?
is it a DECLARED statue?
is it an enabled statute?
is it a local statute?
is it a general statute?
is it a negative statute?
is it a perpetual statute?
is it a personal statute?
is it a penal statute?
is it a private statute?
is it a penal statute?
is it ia real statute?

On another thread on this website I tried to explain the connection (and difference) between the US Code and the US Statutes at Large.

Nearly half of the titles in the US Code have been enacted as "positive law". This means that Congress passed, and the President signed, an enormous bill whose text consisted of all the sections of the title, and beginning with an enacting clause, so that the newly enacted title is positively the wording approved by Congress. Subsequent amendments to that title refer to the section numbers of the title, rather than to an earlier Public Law.

That leaves about half the titles of the US Code not enacted as positive law, which makes them "prima facie law". The titles are compiled by editors who searched out the statutes still in effect - of general and lasting application - separated the sections, checked for amendments or repeals to get the text up to date, and put them all in logical arrangement. A note at the end of each section in these titles lists the statutes from which the section was worked up. It is possible that the editors made a mistake, so these code sections are merely evidence of the law but not the law itself; the law itself is still the Statutes at Large, but until someone proves, from the Statutes at Large, that the code section has some error, the code text is presumed accurate.


With reference to Title 26 of the US Code (the Internal Revenue Code), it is positive law but in a different way from the other titles that are positive law; they were originally prima facie titles and then reprinted and re-enacted as positive law. Title 26 was originally enacted as one huge bill, the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, a statute and thereby positive law, which was then merely incorporated by reference to be known as Title 26; see the official note to 1 US Code sec. 204. It doesn't much matter if someone quibbles about whether or not Title 26 is positive law or prima facie law .... it only matters if someone can show that the text in the Code title differs from the (updated) text of the statutes.

Some of the categories you list -- "affirmed statute", "declared statute", "perpetual statute" -- I have never heard used and I won't try to guess their meaning. I think it is sufficient to say that the text of the sections of Title 26 are general, public, real, some are penal, and they are "perpetual" until amended or repealed.

[mnchicago]

Half the code is enacted into "positive law," half are
prima facie law, the titles are compiled by "editors,"
it is possible some mistakes were made, there could be
errors, but until corrected, they are "presumed accurate."

Title 26 is positive law, "but in a different way."


You're joking, right?

[AndyK]

Originally Posted by mnchicago

Half the code is enacted into "positive law," half are
prima facie law, the titles are compiled by "editors,"
it is possible some mistakes were made, there could be
errors, but until corrected, they are "presumed accurate."

Title 26 is positive law, "but in a different way."


You're joking, right?

As has been posted a dozen times. every line of Title 26 has been enacted into positive law via congressional action. Every bill which modified Title 26 is published in the Statutes At Large.

Every good publication of Title 26 lists not only the compiled text, but references to the specific enacting legislation.

It is all positive law, but not in the sense, as Shoora explained, as having been enacted as one huge document.

Take a few minutes and visit findlaw.com. Look at the section notes that accompany each page. They are the references to the entire legislative history of the current test.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by mnchicago

We do not know each other, and even a simple sentence
can easily be misconstrued. I was kidding, after seeing
all the "warnings" and "you are on my ignore list,"
responses still appear, even as a snippet.

Thanks for clearing that up. I am reminding Readers in hope that so few people will be responding to the trolls here they will dry up and blow away. But also so that people will understand that should AndyK say something that folks would think I might respond to, I am missing it. I have not read anything but hearsay from any of these six for over a week now:

B Rookard
Judge Roy Bean
Shoonra
AndyK
Skeptic62
UGA Lawdog


Regards,

David Merrill.