Tax Laws Repealed

Ice · #1 04-13-2004, 11:08 PM

FYI:Â* Some of us have seen this before... just posting this excerpt from the latest e-mail I received re this subject.Â* Remember,Â*CYA -- do the research.

<TT>Background</TT>

<TT>Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* When Congress passes laws, there is a very specific procedure that</TT> <TT>they follow. Laws are</TT> <TT>enacted by either a Bill or a Resolution that may originate in the</TT> <TT>House or the Senate.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com

ffice

ffice" /><o

></o

></TT>

<TT>Â* <o

></o

></TT>

<TT>"A bill that has been agreed to in an identical form by both bodies </TT><TT>becomes the law of the land only after: 1. Presidential approval; or 2. </TT><TT>failure by the President to return it with objections to the House in which </TT><TT>it originated within 10 days, (Sundays excepted) while Congress is in </TT><TT>session; or 3. the overriding of a presidential veto by two thirds vote in </TT><TT>each House."<o

></o

></TT>


<TT>For a full explanation see<o

></o

></TT>


<TT>Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* http://thomas.loc.gov/home/lawsmade....sofaction.html<o

></o

></TT>

<TT><o

>Â*</o

></TT>

<TT>"Once a</TT> <TT>bill or resolution is enacted it must be published. "One of the important</TT> <TT>steps in the enactment of a valid law is the requirement that it shall be</TT> <TT>made known to the people who are bound by it." This makes sense, since the</TT> <TT>people must have a place to refer to, in order to find out what their</TT> <TT>obligations are, if any, to the Government.<o

></o

></TT>


<TT>Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* When the bills and resolutions are enacted, they are first published </TT><TT>as a "slip law", which</TT> <TT>means they are published in an "unbound pamphlet."</TT>

<TT>Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* These slip laws become "competent evidence" in all federal and state</TT> <TT>courts, tribunals, and public offices.<o

></o

></TT>


<TT>Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* They then become published in the United States Statutes at Large, and </TT><TT>these are "legal evidence" of the laws, and are accepted as proof of the laws in any</TT> <TT>court in the </TT><?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com

ffice:smarttags" /><st1:country-region><st1

lace><TT>United</TT> <TT>States</TT></st1

lace></st1:country-region><TT>.<o

></o

></TT>


<TT>For a full explanation see:<o

></o

></TT>


<TT>Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* http://Thomas.loc.gov/home/lawsmade.bysec/publication.html<o

></o

></TT>


<TT>Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* The statutes are then codified by the Law Revision Counsel of the </TT><TT>House of Representatives. The codes become "prima facie" evidence of the </TT><TT>law, and they</TT> <TT>stand as law, unless rebutted or challenged. However, the codes are</TT> <TT>not law, but simply prima facie (on its face) evidence of the law. This kind</TT> <TT>of evidence should be</TT> <TT>rebutted or challenged, especially when dealing with any alleged</TT> <TT>internal revenue</TT> <TT>code.<o

></o

></TT>


<TT>Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* However, when communicating with the Internal Revenue Service, </TT><TT>literally thousands upon thousands of people have been asking the simple </TT><TT>question, "Show me the law",</TT> <TT>and have been stonewalled by that agency without any apparent</TT> <TT>recourse. People</TT> <TT>have been thrown in prison for violating a "law" that hasn't been</TT> <TT>disclosed when</TT> <TT>demanded.<o

></o

></TT>


<TT>Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Why does this happen? It would seem to be obvious, that the Government </TT><TT>would put forth the law when requested. Why don't they do it? I submit that </TT><TT>the reason is</TT> <TT>these laws simply do not exist because they were repealed in 1939.</TT><o

></o

>

<TT>
Yes, that is</TT> <TT>correct, the internal revenue laws were repealed in that year.</TT>

<TT>Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Here is how it happened.<o

></o

></TT>


<TT>Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Look at Exhibit A Exhibit B, Exhibit C and Exhibit D (Print them out), it is a copy of the INTERNAL REVENUE CODE February 10th, 1939 [H. R. </TT><TT>2762] [Public, No 1] Chapter 2 At Sec 4. it says the following: "all such </TT><TT>laws and parts of laws codified herein, to the extent they relate </TT><TT>exclusively to internal revenue, are repealed, effective, except as provided </TT><TT>in Sec. 5."<o

></o

></TT>


<TT>Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Section 5. "Continuance of Existing Law.- Any provision of law in </TT><TT>force on the 2nd day of January 1939 corresponding to a provision contained </TT><TT>in the Internal Revenue Title</TT> <TT>Shall remain in force until the corresponding provision under such</TT> <TT>Title takes effect."<o

></o

></TT>


<TT>Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* What just happened? It appears that indeed, the internal revenue laws </TT><TT>were repealed and</TT> <TT>saved in the Internal Revenue Title for use to preserve the rights and</TT> <TT>liabilities that</TT> <TT>occurred when these internal revenue laws were in effect. But since</TT> <TT>they were repealed,</TT> <TT>they no longer applied, after the date of enactment, to anyone unless</TT> <TT>the liability occurred before the enactment of this statute. In other words,</TT> <TT>they were moved to the Internal Revenue Title for savings or archive</TT> <TT>purposes, and that they only applied to those</TT> <TT>who incurred a liability before the date of enactment. The Internal</TT> <TT>Revenue Title thus contained repealed law.<o

></o

></TT>


<TT>Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Now look at Exhibit D, which is Public Law 591-Chapter 736, approved </TT><st1:date Year="1954" Day="16" Month="8"><TT>August 16th, 1954</TT></st1:date><TT>,</TT> <TT>H.R. 8300 which is called Internal Revenue Code of 1954. On the eleventh</TT> <TT>line down it states, "To revise the internal revenue laws of the </TT><st1:country-region><st1

lace><TT>United</TT> <TT>States</TT></st1

lace></st1:country-region><TT>." What laws?<o

></o

></TT>


<TT>Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* The laws in the Internal Revenue Title were repealed laws. So what did</TT> <TT>they revise?</TT> <TT>They revised nothing. They did indeed give the perception that these</TT> <TT>laws were being</TT> <TT>enacted, however, it would be a legislative impossibility given the</TT> <TT>normal procedures</TT> <TT>Congress uses to enact laws. Remember, Congress enacts laws, they do</TT> <TT>not enact</TT> <TT>Codes. Codes are written by codifiers, and they are an index to make</TT> <TT>it easier and</TT> <TT>more orderly to find the law.<o

></o

></TT>


<TT>Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* As I understand this, Congress can only revise codes, but they amend </TT><TT>statutes and statutes are the publication of the laws. So it appears to be </TT><TT>what some call a "legislative orphan." It didn't follow the normal process </TT><TT>Congress uses to enact laws. We can only surmise, that Congress pulled a </TT><TT>fast one and made it appear that the internal revenue laws were "revised", </TT><TT>when the truth of the matter is that they attempted to "enact" a statute </TT><TT>based upon repealed law. The lawmaking process does not work that way. </TT><TT>Congress</TT> <TT>cannot amend repealed laws, they would have to enact new ones.</TT>

<TT>Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* If the internal revenue laws were repealed, and that appears to be the </TT><TT>fact, what does this</TT> <TT>mean? Did Congress do this on purpose? Or did it happen over a period</TT> <TT>of time between 1939 and 1954. What did they know, and when did they know</TT> <TT>it? We may never be</TT> <TT>able to answer that question, but we do know that they did it, and the</TT> <TT>law still stands today.<o

></o

></TT>


<TT>Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Many in the "tax honesty" movement, have been saying over and over </TT><TT>again, "Show me the lawb" and the government remains silent. The more </TT><TT>complete question is: Show me the law that makes me liable for the tax. And again, the government</TT> <TT>remains silent.<o

></o

></TT>

<TT><o

>Â*</o

></TT>

<TT>Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* It is because there is no law, and the government knows it. If they </TT><TT>actually pointed</TT> <TT>to a purported liability, it would be a gross error, or worse, a</TT> <TT>complete lie.<o

></o

></TT>


<TT>Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* I've had two occasions myself and I asked the question to IRS </TT><TT>officials, "Please tell me</TT> <TT>what statute, code, or regulation that makes me liable for the tax,</TT> <TT>and I got nothing</TT> <TT>but silence. One IRS appeals officer told me, "I don't have to answer</TT> <TT>that, that's compelled testimony."</TT>

<TT>Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Therefore, since the internal revenue laws were repealed, what is the </TT><TT>purpose in studying the codes? Nothing. Why study codes that are not supported by law? It</TT> <TT>doesn't</TT> <TT>make any sense. It appears that the process of studying codes occurs</TT> <TT>because</TT> <TT>people think that they are law, but the reality is that they may or</TT> <TT>may not be an</TT> <TT>accurate representation of law. One should always demand the</TT> <TT>underlying statute</TT> <TT>before answering any complaint or charge. Remember, the "slip laws"</TT> <TT>are competent</TT> <TT>evidence, the statutes are legal evidence, and the codes are prima</TT> <TT>facie evidence</TT> <TT>of the law. If someone is dealing with an IRS issue, I would most</TT> <TT>certainly demand</TT> <TT>to see the slip laws along with the statutes.<o

></o

></TT>


<TT>Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* In fact, the Department of Justice states the following: "The text of </TT><TT>all statutes alleged to have been violated, including the penalty provision, </TT><TT>and the pertinent statute of limitations should be typed out in full either </TT><TT>in the body of the prosecutor's affidavit or as exhibits to the prosecutor's </TT><TT>affidavit. If attached as an exhibit, each statute should be typed on a </TT><TT>separate page. If the text of the pertinent statute is unusually long or </TT><TT>convoluted, contact the Office of International Affairs regarding the </TT><TT>possibility of reduction. It is usually not necessary to also include the </TT><TT>applicable provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines."<o

></o

></TT>


<TT>http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia...9/crm00607.htm<o

></o

></TT>

<TT><o

>Â*</o

></TT>

<TT>In</TT> <TT>almost every instance I have seen in income or employment tax cases, there</TT> <TT>is no lawful affidavit sworn by a competent witness and there is no statute</TT> <TT>included in any charge/claim. Many people have been put in jail, based upon</TT> <TT>unsworn charges with no statutes.<o

></o

></TT>


<TT>Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Therefore, it is essential that the statutes be included in any kind </TT><TT>of charge, and this</TT> <TT>is something that was overlooked in the cases Iâ€™ve seen. Why? In the case</TT> <TT>of the internal revenue laws, it appears they were repealed in 1939 and no</TT> <TT>new internal revenue laws were enacted. The government attorneys simply move</TT> <TT>their process forward because</TT> <TT>we don't challenge their presentments.</TT>

<TT>Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Any charges from the federal government that does not include lawfully </TT><TT>enacted statutes</TT> <TT>are nothing more than merit less, frivolous, charges that are meant to</TT> <TT>embarrass, oppress,</TT> <TT>harass, and intimidate the people.<o

></o

></TT>


<TT>Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* How was this factÂ*passed over by so many researchers? The power of </TT><TT>breaking a belief that one has held most of their life is quite difficult to </TT><TT>break.</TT>

<TT>Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* About two years ago, at a research meeting in Oklahoma, Jack Cohen, </TT><TT>from Washington</TT> <TT>state, pointed outÂ*the factÂ*that the 1939 internal revenue laws were</TT> <TT>repealed. Yes, we've</TT> <TT>been sitting on this for two years, but we just didn't realize the implications. Jack</TT> <TT>held up the book to all the researchers. They all looked at it, but</TT> <TT>then they completely</TT> <TT>forgot about it and carried on with little discussion. I was there,</TT> <TT>and since the other</TT> <TT>researchers didn't have much of an interest, I thought maybe there was </TT><TT>not much merit</TT> <TT>to Jack's statement. But I kept thinking that if what Jack said was</TT> <TT>true, then we don't have to go through all this other material, if the</TT> <TT>internal revenue laws were repealed. Why are we studying codes if there is</TT> <TT>no law? Even now, with the evidence</TT> <TT>in my hands, it is still hard to believe, but the statutes speak for</TT> <TT>themselves. It is our knowledge and understanding that seems to be subject to our old ways</TT> <TT>of thinking.<o

></o

></TT>


<TT>Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Therefore, unless we're missing something, it appears that indeed the </TT><TT>internal revenue</TT> <TT>laws were repealed and that may be one of the reasons that the</TT> <TT>government refuses</TT> <TT>to "show me the law". There isn't one.<o

></o

></TT>


<TT>Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Now read below this line and you should now understand why the </TT><TT>following para. is in the 26 USC.<o

></o

></TT>


<TT>-----------------------------------------------</TT>

<TT>Pay particular attention to the red and blue section below.Â* Imagine using </TT><TT>this in addition to the story above.<o

></o

></TT>



<TT>Sec. 7806. Construction of title</TT> <TT>TITLE 26, Subtitle F, CHAPTER 80, Subchapter A, Sec. 7806</TT> <o

></o

>

<o

>Â*</o

>

<TT>STATUTE <o

></o

></TT>

<TT><o

>Â*</o

></TT>

<TT>(a)</TT> <TT>Cross references<o

></o

></TT>

<TT><o

>Â*</o

></TT>

<TT>The cross references in this title to other portions of the title, or </TT><TT>other provisions of law, where the word ''see'' is used, are made only for </TT><TT>convenience, and shall be given no legal effect.<o

></o

></TT>


<TT>(b) Arrangement and classification<o

></o

></TT>


<TT>Â* No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction </TT><TT>shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any </TT><TT>particular section or provision or portion of this title, nor shall any </TT><TT>table of contents, table of cross references, or similar outline, analysis, </TT><TT>or descriptive matter relating to the contents of this title be given any </TT><TT>legal effect. The preceding sentence also applies to the side notes and </TT><TT>ancillary tables contained in the various prints of this Act before its </TT><TT>enactment into law.<o

></o

></TT>


<TT>If you still fail to see...well all I can say is "none are so blind as those </TT><TT>who refuse to see".</TT><o

></o

>

Â*

#2 04-14-2004, 11:22 PM

Where are Exhibits A,B,C, & D?

Thanks

HB

Ice · #3 04-15-2004, 12:07 AM

The exhibits are copies of the code... the code cites are given in the body of the letter... retyping the exhibits&would be&redundant.

&

sadie · #4 06-12-2004, 12:10 AM

Ice,

Just read your post on the repeal of the tax laws. Yeah!

Trying to follow the code, title, statute and have an idea how it works will check your www refenced sites for further research.

If the code and title are not the real statute (law) then why is it that everything seems to be cited by USC Title 123 etc.?

Such as - you are in violation of 15 USC 1692 g.

I have also seen this referenced as FDCPA 809

Do you know what the difference is between 809 and 1692g?

If this is a code and title not statute then what law do you reference?

Thanks for sharing your great storehouse of knowledge.

#5 06-12-2004, 12:30 AM

This would be a nice bit of info to print out for a friend of ours who is undergoing a tit for tat with IRS, but there is NO PRINT BUTTON for printing a forum response!

Can this be rectified soon?

SKYGZR · #6 06-12-2004, 02:51 AM

enslegis,

Simple to do what you desire....just have your friend either use your 'puter, or perhaps, join all of us here.

#7 06-12-2004, 11:45 PM

Those of you who want to read Al Thompson's complete text concerning "Tax Laws Repealed", please go to the following site:

www.gemworld.com/US-TaxRepealed.html