Remove Tax Liens

[rentiap]

Originally Posted by AndyK

David, you are confusing 'positive law' with valid law.
There is a difference between them.


As a research assignment, why don't you try to learn the difference between 'positive law' and valid law and explain it to the others so they'll believe it.

If I try to explain it, I'll just be called a liar, propagandist, whatever.

Andy

Though I havn't been able to find it yet
I believe this has already been beaten to death in another thread.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by freeindeed

I thought this was very interesting here . Care to comment Andy. Looks to me like this Congressman can read. This is evidently a response to a question regarding U.S. Code, Title 26, Subtitle F, Chapter 64, Subchapter D Part II, Section 6331(a). Notice the last paragraph of the response.

I have used the letter in support of my actions regarding the IRS.

Originally Posted by freeindeed

I wonder why section (a) of 6331 is left of the notice of levy. Could it be to mislead people Andy?

Yes, could this be what the IRS wants to do, mislead people? Please respond AndyK!

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by BOBT12

I have used the letter in support of my actions regarding the IRS.

Yes, could this be what the IRS wants to do, mislead people? Please respond AndyK!

Yes, by all means AndyK please respond to freeindeed's inquiry. Oh, cat got your tongue? Are you sure you are here to be forthright and to "provide positive or constructive remarks as appropriate," to quote from one of your other posts. Seems to me being the IRS shill that you are, you have nothing to say because you would have to admit to the truth of the letter from the Congressman. I think this may be one of the things you were asked to rebut with facts by freeindeed, but as usual there is none. One more piece of evidence that people are railroaded by the IRS and wrongly convicted of non-existent crimes.

[freeindeed]

Yeah, notice how Andy answers others questions, but just goes right around mine. That is very telling. It shows he is here for no other reason than to distort and lie. Otherwise he would honestly comment on the Congressman's letter. Maybe he thinks this one as he said, "they are not interpreted correctly." Tell me Andy is there any other interpretation you can get from the Congressman's letter?

I'm sorry Andy, I forgot what you said earlier so I guess this is one of the factual statements you are agreeing you cannot rebut because it is true, eh?

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by AndyK

David, you are confusing 'positive law' with valid law.
There is a difference between them.

The ultimate source to determine the validity and correctness of a law is the Statutes At Large.

If you take the time to verify the followingyou will find that the section was validly enacted.

As a research assignment, why don't you try to learn the difference between 'positive law' and valid law and explain it to the others so they'll believe it.

If I try to explain it, I'll just be called a liar, propagandist, whatever.

Andy

This is just the kind of sophistry I care not to spend any time with.

Read at the bottom of the form:

* This title has been enacted as law.

Meaning only the Titles of the USC with an asterisk have been enacted as law.

You are called a liar, propagandist, whatever out of your own testimony. You are trying to nitpick between the words positive and valid. I can make you shut up AndyK. So you Readers understand that AndyK is on my Ignore Member list. When I get annoyed at his shenanigans now and again I will post the link to his bio on Quatloos following a few of his posts, just to keep newbees aware.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[AndyK]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

This is just the kind of sophistry I care not to spend any time with.

Read at the bottom of the form:



Meaning only the Titles of the USC with an asterisk have been enacted as law.

You are called a liar, propagandist, whatever out of your own testimony. You are trying to nitpick between the words positive and valid. I can make you shut up AndyK. So you Readers understand that AndyK is on my Ignore Member list. When I get annoyed at his shenanigans now and again I will post the link to his bio on Quatloos following a few of his posts, just to keep newbees aware.


Regards,

David Merrill.

In other words, you don't understand the difference between a complete title which has been enacted as a unified entity and titles which have been enacted, piece by piece, via separate legislative acts and you are too lazy to look up the concept and verify its accuracy.

Consider, for example Title 1. It was enacted into positive law on July 30, 1947 (ch. 388, 61 Stat. 633). However, 1USC1 differs from the 1947 version in that it was amended in 1996 and 2000 by Pub. L. 107-207, Sec. 2(b) and Pub. L. 104-199, Sec. 3(b), respectively.

So, what is the actual law? Is it the 1947 version or do the amendments count as law?

This is an open-book question, you are permitted to consult the Statutes At Large, in specific, 110 Stat. 2420 and 116 Stat. 926.

You might be astonished to find there is actually something about which you are mistaken.

[AndyK]

Originally Posted by freeindeed

I thought this was very interesting here . Care to comment Andy. Looks to me like this Congressman can read. This is evidently a response to a question regarding U.S. Code, Title 26, Subtitle F, Chapter 64, Subchapter D Part II, Section 6331(a). Notice the last paragraph of the response.



I wonder why section (a) of 6331 is left of the notice of levy. Could it be to mislead people Andy?

I'm working on the response to the first part.

Now a question back at you: Why is any part of 6331 printed on the notice of levy?

[freeindeed]

Originally Posted by AndyK

I'm working on the response to the first part.

Now a question back at you: Why is any part of 6331 printed on the notice of levy?

I believe it is to deceive people into believing the IRS has the right to levy paychecks of a worker in the private sector. The key is Andy, the first section of 6331, which is (a) specifically states who can be levied and it is not a worker in the private sector as the letter from the Congressman points out.

I have put another link for you to view regarding a notice of levy, which is no levy at all. Of course I do not expect you to comment truthfully about the contents, but I am hopeful.

http://www.worldnewsstand.net/law/levy.htm

I will await your response.

[bridge of sighs]

Title 26 CFR part 31.6011(b)-2 Employee's Account unmbers. (b)(4) In part: if the sevices are performed for an employer other than an employer required to file returns of the taxes imposed by the Federal Insurance Contributions Act with the office of the United States Internal Revenue Srevice in Puerto Rico (R.I.C.O). Must be the same Internal Revenue as Title 31 USC Sec.1321 Trust Funds(62) Puerto Rico (R.I.C.O) special Fund (Internal Revenue).

[freeindeed]

Here is a good PDF on the subject of a notice of levy is not a levy.

http://www.irx-solutions.com/files/not-a-levy.pdf