Re: Understanding the USC and the CFR: This is CRUCIAL!

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Common Right Group at San Diego county [California] on May 31, 1997 at 05:31:29:

In Reply to: Understanding the USC and the CFR: This is CRUCIAL! posted by Charles F. Charpentier on May 27, 1997 at 23:29:34:

: USC vs CFR
: OR

: By

: Charles F. Charpentier, P.I.
: (E-mail me:

: This document will help you understand the difference between Federal Statutes and Administrative
: Regulations. This is the cornerstone of the foundation of understanding the fraud which the IRS is
: perpetrating on Americans.

: When Congress passes a law, that law is recorded in a set of books known as:

: The United States Code (or USC)

: New USC laws cannot be enforced until new regulations are issued. Those regulations implement
: the USC laws, and are recorded in the set of books known as:

: The Code of Federal Regulations (or CFR)


: ALSO: Memorize the term "Implementing Regulations." You'll hear much more about them. For
: example, shown next is an Associated Press article which appeared in the Friday, June 4, 1993
: edition of Investor's Business Daily. This article clearly shows the difference between the statute
: and the regulation. Also, it shows the span of time between the enactment of the statute and the
: promulgation of the regulation. If that was a mouthful, read on, and it will be explained.

: Officials Issue New Regulations To Implement Family Leave Law

: WASHINGTON (AP) The Labor Department yesterday announced regulations,
: effective Aug 5, implementing a new law that provides about 40% of American
: workers with unpaid leave for family emergencies. President Clinton signed the Family
: and Medical Leave act on Feb. 5, 16 days after taking office. Former President Bush
: twice vetoed similar measures... (emphasis added)

: You can see from the above article that the idea of regulations which implement the laws is no
: secret. Websters New Collegiate Dictionary describes the verb "implement" as:

: 2 implement vt 1 : to carry out : accomplish; esp : to give practical effect to and ensure of actual
: fulfillment by concrete measures (plans not yet implemented due to lack of funds).

: Barron's Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition, describes "regulations" as:

: REGULATIONS rules or other directives issued by administrative agencies that must have specific
: authorization to issue directives and upon such authorization must usually follow prescribed
: conditions, such as prior notification of the proposed action in a public record and an invitation for
: public comment. See Administrative Procedure Act.

: So we go there, and it reads in part:

: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT [APA] an act designed to give uniformity to the
: rule-making and adjudicative proceedings of federal administrative agencies. The federal
: government passed the act in 1946, in response to increasing resentment of the agencies' latitude in
: matters affecting the rights of individuals... ...The APA provides guidelines for... ...public access to
: agency rules and decisions, and it creates rights of counsel at hearings, (and) rights of public access
: to administrative hearings... (underlines added)

: The Internal Revenue Service is an administrative agency or regulatory agency, governed by its
: own administrative codes, which are issued by the Secretary of the Treasury (*SEE NOTE
: BELOW!). Barron's Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition, defines "regulatory agency" as:

: REGULATORY AGENCY a government body responsible for control and supervision of a
: particular activity or area of public interest. For example, the Federal Communications Commission
: (FCC), in addition to its other duties, administers the laws regulating access to communication
: facilities such as television and radio airwaves. Regulatory agencies are also called
: administrative agencies. (emphasis added)

: No IRS law (USC) enacted by Congress is valid without an implementing regulation (CFR) issued
: by the Secretary of the Treasury. Though there are many more examples from case law we could
: quote for this, the following Supreme Court opinion proves the point.

: "...we think it important to note that the Act's civil and criminal penalties attach only upon violation
: of regulations promulgated by the Secretary; if the Secretary were to do nothing, the Act itself
: would impose no penalties on anyone." (underlines added) {California Bankers Ass'n v. Schultz,
: 416 US 21 (1974)}

: The "Act" spoken of here by the Supreme Court was an Act signed into law during a certain year,
: which then was recorded in the USC as a law. But unless the Secretary of the Treasury
: "promulgates" certain regulations to implement the statute, the statute just sits there! No civil or
: criminal penalties attach unless there is a violation of REGULATIONS promulgated by the
: Secretary! It says so right there in the above statement!

: The Random House Dictionary describes "promulgate" as:

: promulgate, v.t. 1. to put into operation (a law, etc.) by formal proclamation. 2. to set forth publicly
: (a creed, etc.).
: (parentheses theirs)

: You might ask, "Are the regulations in the CFR really laws?" That's a good question. Understand
: that there are different kinds of laws. An ordinance of a municipality stating that riding bicycles on a
: downtown sidewalk is a law. A county may pass guidelines for zoning, defining residential,
: agricultural and business areas. Those guidelines are also laws. Regulations are laws, but they are
: not statutes! Regulations do not stand on their own; they are (or ought to be) based upon statutes
: passed by Congress (or the equivalent on the State level), and must adhere to our Constitution (at
: least theoretically).

: The IRS cannot arbitrarily make up their own laws (regulations). The "laws" of any regulatory (or
: administrative) agency, though they are called "laws," are regulations to implement a statute which
: has been passed by Congress. You must remember that when someone says, "It's the law," they
: may not be speaking about a statute, but about a regulation or an ordinance. Barron's Law
: Dictionary describes "statute" as:

: STATUTE an act of the legislature, adopted pursuant to its constitutional authority, by prescribed
: means and in certain form such that it becomes the law governing conduct within its scope. Statutes
: are enacted to prescribe conduct, define crimes, create inferior government bodies, appropriate
: public monies, and in general to promote the public good and welfare. Lesser governmental bodies
: adopt ordinances; administrative agencies adopt REGULATIONS...
: (underlines added)

: Are you getting the picture? Let's look at Barron's again...

: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW law created by administrative agencies by way of rules, regulations,
: orders, and decisions.

: So in conclusion: regulations are laws, and statutes are laws. The CFR is full of laws, but those
: regulations are only valid laws in that they implement, or, put into effect, an actual statute enacted
: into law by Congress. Theoretically, the IRS can't simply fill the CFR with "laws" at its own whim;
: they must be based on an actual statute, and be "constitutional."

: In following documents, you will learn that the IRS has NO IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS
: for the distraint actions it takes against you. They want you to believe that:

: You must file a tax return

: You must make your records available

: If you don't, we'll fine you, take your house, your car, or throw you in jail

: In upcoming chapters, you'll learn how the IRS deceitfully (and knowingly) twists the interpretation
: of the tax laws, and uses Gestapo-like tactics to "keep us in line." You'll learn how the IRS, aside
: from a few exceptions, fraudulently dupes the American public into believing that they are required
: to pay taxes for which they are NOT liable; e.g. "Income Tax on Individuals." This is made clear by
: the fact that, for years, the IRS has refused to answer a few simple questions from Americans, such
: as: "What tax am I liable for?" and "Which form does the law require me to file to pay that tax?"

: For the IRS to answer either of these questions would force them to expose their fraud. They
: would either have to lie or tell the truth, neither of which they can afford to do. The lie would
: expose them, and the truth would bring down their empire.

: NOTE: Since writing this, it has come to my attention that the IRS may not be an
: organization or agency of the Department of the Treasury AT ALL, and that the IRS was
: NOT created by Congress. This does not negate what I have set forth here, but this
: chapter was only, and remains, merely one ANGLE to use against this fraud. Please print
: out and read: to learn more about how the IRS
: exists and is structured within our government (if at all).

One beautiful piece of work by Charles C.

Now, there's just one more thing about the CFR's. Merely making impementing regulations does not take the law or the [implementing] regulation out of the exclusive venue of the District of Columbia (and "U.S." territories.)
The [proposed] regulation must be published in the Federal Register for a thirty day "notice and Grace" period, giving the congress or any other interested party opportunity to challenge it. That still may not be sufficient. Does the law and regulation meet the criteria and venue requirements of Art. I, Sect. 8, Cl. 17 of the constitution for the united States of America? Such rules, laws and regs may be authorized outside the D. of C., but only pertain to "Forts, Arsenals, Dockyards, and other needful buildings, or to areas that fit that criteria that the states have expressly ceded jurisdiction over, with the consent of the Congress of the united States. (yes, "united" in "united States" is an adjective. United States is a corporation wholly owned by the government of the united States (EEOC manual, p. 1.)
There are many things which are "legal" (procedurally ok) that are not "lawful" (nothing of substance to apply the procedure to). We suggest looking up the word "lawful" in Black's. Carefully read the minor dissertation at the end of the definition - several times - then chew on it.
While we're at it, let us recomment looking up Title 4 United States Code, Section 72. This is solid law which reflects the intent of the Constituion. Anyone who doesn't look this one up (USC titles are even on the internet) should be called a fool. Our littlest guy will call anyone a fool that doesn't read that section of law.
Oh, by the way, the codes are not law unless they have been specifically poassed into law by the (state or federal) legislature. The "law" is the original act of the legislature from which the codes are mere restatements of. Quite often the Code Commissioner leaves out the most important point of any law when codifying. Case in point is the California law requiring an driver's license for the "operator" of any (qualified) motor vehicle. Now it seems the vehicle code, which only applies to the subject matter it was written for, doesn't tell who it was NOT intended to address, but the 1925, 1937, and 1940 acts of the legislature discuss not only who IS an operator, but...... who IS NOT an operator.
"I refuse your allegation that I am in violation of any section of 'code' for Fraud. I ain't coming in to your courts martial, I'm a civillian!"
Hey! If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right...

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]