Text of public law 73-10

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The entire US Code consists of public law. The US Code does not contain any private laws.

Some titles have been re-enacted as positive law, meaning that Congress has bundled all the sections of the title and enacted them in exactly the words that will appear in the US Code. The other titles are prima facie law; they were worked up from the Acts of Congress by editors, starting in 1924, and the editors, in parsing out sections, may have changed some words. The only challenge to the text of the prima facie titles is that a section does not accurately reproduce the words of the original statutes.

This got me thinking about Congress and the USC writers substituting prima facie law in for private law.

A great way to win my point here is that Shoonra is saying that many Title of the USC are so sloppily codified from the Acts of Congress that one must let the reader know he should really read the Congressional Record and doublecheck everything for loopholes. Which is of course kind of absurd.

And admitted within Shoonra's posts above is that Title 31 was somehow fairly recently deemed to agree with the Acts enacting them to be reenacted but as positive law.

Whereas any cursory study of the definition of positive law means that it is accepted law covering the entire population of any particular positive law jural society. Anything other than positive law, like Title 26 the IRC only applies to certain conditions which qualify as private sectors or certain individuals - those who have accrued a tax liability on Income.

To follow through on Shoonra's logic about prima facie law, nobody can logically disqualify sloppy renditions of Congressional Acts as non-positive law. The writers of the USC would simply use the term prima facie to warn one that these Titles may not accurately reflect what Congress intended and may be challenged on such grounds. Like Shoonra is saying, but that would in no way catagorize nearly half the titles to be anything other than positive law just the same. They are not positive law by definition because they only apply to certain groups within the overall positive law jural society.

Title 26 is private law. It is not secret law, like Dove of Oneness's NESARA. It is private law.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Shoonra]

SFBFKADVP cannot learn and cannot shut up.

The US Code was not "sloppily" edited. It was put together very carefully, but a lesson was learned from the previous attempt at codification, the Revised Statutes of 1872. This time (1924) the entire USC was first presented as prima facie law - so as not to repeal and replace the underlying statutes - until all the glitches had been shaken out. And there were some glitches. Gradually titles were re-enacted as "positive law"; positive law means that the text is the very same as in the Acts of Congress, and when the text of a title is set forth in one big Act of Congress there is no doubt that thereafter the title says exactly what Congress wanted it to say.

For the non-positive titles, they are prima facie evidence of what Congress enacted. Reference must be made to the original Acts of Congress to challenge the USC text. The original Acts of Congress, whether or not included in the US Code, are public law.

The titles which are positive law are not "deemed to agree" with the underlying statute; the titles themselves, every section from first to last, are enacted in one huge Act of Congress as the title and as postive law (and usually this involves some revision or rearrangement of the title from its text just before this enactment).

In the case of Title 26, the underlying Act of Congress is titled the Internal Revenue Code. After the Internal Revenue Code was enacted as a (very long) statute, the Congress then incorporated it bodily into the USC as title 26. Whether that makes title 26 positive law or not is not important; in any case title 26 exactly duplicates the words of the original Acts of Congress and nobody has shown otherwise. Title 26 is undoubtedly public law. Several scofflaws have already tried using Van Pelt's quibbling about whether or not Title 26 is positive law, and the courts have set them straight on what that really means.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

SFBFKADVP cannot learn and cannot shut up.

The US Code was not "sloppily" edited. It was put together very carefully, but a lesson was learned from the previous attempt at codification, the Revised Statutes of 1872. This time (1924) the entire USC was first presented as prima facie law - so as not to repeal and replace the underlying statutes - until all the glitches had been shaken out. And there were some glitches. Gradually titles were re-enacted as "positive law"; positive law means that the text is the very same as in the Acts of Congress, and when the text of a title is set forth in one big Act of Congress there is no doubt that thereafter the title says exactly what Congress wanted it to say.

For the non-positive titles, they are prima facie evidence of what Congress enacted. Reference must be made to the original Acts of Congress to challenge the USC text. The original Acts of Congress, whether or not included in the US Code, are public law.

The titles which are positive law are not "deemed to agree" with the underlying statute; the titles themselves, every section from first to last, are enacted in one huge Act of Congress as the title and as postive law (and usually this involves some revision or rearrangement of the title from its text just before this enactment).

In the case of Title 26, the underlying Act of Congress is titled the Internal Revenue Code. After the Internal Revenue Code was enacted as a (very long) statute, the Congress then incorporated it bodily into the USC as title 26. Whether that makes title 26 positive law or not is not important; in any case title 26 exactly duplicates the words of the original Acts of Congress and nobody has shown otherwise. Title 26 is undoubtedly public law. Several scofflaws have already tried using Van Pelt's quibbling about whether or not Title 26 is positive law, and the courts have set them straight on what that really means.

That explanation makes no sense. Look at the attachment.

Nearly half of these Titles are in a state of completion? Into positive law? Remember that the definition of positive law is law for all of a positive law jural society.

I would never argue it. So anybody who is arguing it is not doing so on my advice. I redeem lawful money instead of endorsing private credit from the Fed. Therefore I am not subject to Title 26, whatever you want to call it. I am not subject to Title 26 but of course would have to answer to murder - Title 18 - which is positive law.

As for being Van Pelt - that is not my name. As much as Shoonra thinks he annoys me calling me that, it is not my name. I have abated many cases by simply requiring the clerk of court correct my name to David Merrill and giving him ten days to do so.

Readers and members here are familiar with Randy Lee and his federal court transcript too. The essence of any successful abatement process is Refusal for Cause. Several times, when a Suijuris member imports an abatement I like to just find the R4C in the fluff. With a search engine it takes half a second.

As for the acronym; I just take it that Shoonra is at a loss for any kind of a winning argument to debate with.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Remember that the definition of positive law is law for all of a positive law jural society.

Wrong wrong wrong.
There are plenty of textbooks on statutory interpretation and on legislation for someone to learn what positive law means.

[ezrhythm]

Statutory?

AWAY FROM HERE Shoonra with your anti sui juris posts!

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

Statutory?

AWAY FROM HERE Shoonra with your anti sui juris posts!

What he said! Get thee behind me Satan!!

You distract from the point Shoonra, the one you lost a couple months ago. Where in the history of Congress did they ever reverse Juliard?


http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ll_juliard.jpg

...notes of the United States...shall be reissued* and kept in circulation.

The question arose because the hostilities had ceased. However the emergency is ongoing so fiat currency is still allowed. Another way to ask the same question is Can any state of confederacy of states secede from the Union today?

The answer is No. That is an ongoing emergency when the states come into the Union voluntarily but are not allowed to secede from the Union if the people of that state desire to.

So quit your satanic quibbling and obfuscation about what is obvious in the US Codebooks Shoonra. [Shin, Nun, Resh, Heh - I bet that means something nasty in Biblical Hebrew.] The only reason I just passed that Congressman's letter by was as I said, "That's nothing new. You can find that out [Title 26 is private law] in the cover of any US Codebook."

You made the admission here that many US codes not positive law by bringing up the fact that Title 31 was reenacted as positive law when, 1984? Thanks for that.

So Get thee behind me Satan!! - With your silly little Satanic quibblings about definitions! This world does not belong to you anymore! Your offers were R4C'd by the Messiah of God.

http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/sui...elCalendar.jpg

1. The universal voluntary law, or those rules which are presumed to be law, by the uniform practice of nations in general, and by the manifest utility of the rules themselves.

That is like what I said; for all general members of a postive law jural society - a state or nation.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Nearly half of these Titles are in a state of completion? Into positive law? Remember that the definition of positive law is law for all of a positive law jural society.

I would never argue it. So anybody who is arguing it is not doing so on my advice. I redeem lawful money instead of endorsing private credit from the Fed. Therefore I am not subject to Title 26, whatever you want to call it. I am not subject to Title 26 but of course would have to answer to murder - Title 18 - which is positive law.

Sounds like "prima facia evidence of debt"

The merger of law and equity begins to resonate here; ahhh....I get it!

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

Sounds like "prima facia evidence of debt"

The merger of law and equity begins to resonate here; ahhh....I get it!

Just when I thought I had arrived (again)!

On the Equity side of any court - prima facie evidence of debt...

Private contract law.

That was the main purpose of the otherwise redunant Sixteenth Amendment too. Bring these contract disputes into the general courts of the US.

Shoonra admits that after the fixed exchange rate was set afloat, by chattelizing human resources, title 31 setting lawful money at a rate of $42.22/ounce of gold was ready for re-ratification into positive law. Title 31 U.S.C. Section 5117.

That is why I like Shoona around here. A retired law librarian has a lot to offer.



Regards,

David Merrill