1 USC 204 Positive Law, Title 26 (IRC) not incl & enacted in a separate code

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

Posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on April 16, 1998 at 16:55:03:

In Reply to: 1 USC 204 Positive Law, Title 26 (IRC) not incl & enacted in a separate code posted by Red Hunter on April 16, 1998 at 13:10:48:

: Sorry, but don't know how of create a separate thread. If not positive law, then only prima facie law. If positive law then the text thereof shall be legal evidence of the laws therein contained, in the all the courts of the United States, the several states, and the Territories and insular possessions of the United States. Further on, it is stated:

: Title 26, Internal Revenue Code

: The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was enacted in the form of a separate code by act Aug 16. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 1. Pub. L. 99-514, Sec. 2(a), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2095, provided that the Internal Revenue Title enacted Aub. 16, 1954, as heretofore, hereby, or hereafter amended, may be cited as the "Internal Revenue Code of 1986". The sections of Title 26, United States Code, are identical to the sections of the Internal Revenue Code.

: I have been unable to find in what SEPARATE CODE the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 as enacted. Perhaps Puerto Rico?

: Any comments on Positive Law or my question?

Look at the table of Titles in the intro pages
to any Title of the United States Code, as
officially published by West. There, you will
find that Title 26, U.S.C., has no asterisk ("*"),
thus indicating that Title 26 has NOT been
enacted into positive law. As a consequence,
the Title as such is only prima facie evidence
of the Statutes at Large. This fact has also
been confirmed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives. There is also much evidence
that the consistent legislative practice by
Congress is to use the term "this title" to
refer to Titles of the United States Code;
this is certainly the case in Title 28
(where it matters most). Thus, the statute at
IRC 7851(a)(6)(A) controls, to wit:

"The provisions of subtitle F shall take effect
on the day after the date of enactment of
this title ...."

Since Title 26 has not yet been enacted into
positive law (i.e., it is still only prima facie
and not conclusive evidence of the underlying
Statutes at Large), the obvious conclusion is
that subtitle F has not yet taken effect.
This is crucial, because subtitle F contains
ALL the enforcement provisions in the
Internal Revenue Code ("IRC").

A thorough discussion of the term "this title"
can be found in Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF,
in the case law section of the Supreme Law
Library ("SLL"), here at URL:


See also the language found in the Act of
June 25, 1948, which completely revamped
Title 28 (the Title of the United States Code
which authorizes and governs all federal
courts). I believe the Statute at Large
is 62 Stat. 869, June 25, 1948 (4 days after
my birth on planet earth).

I hope this helps. Read all of Title 1, U.S.C.,
for the pertinent details on prima facie,
and conclusive, evidence of the laws in question.

Although it is certainly a worthwhile project
to codify all of the Statutes at Large on any
given subject, which project has been authorized
by Act of Congress, it is still a matter of
federal law that Title 26 and the IRC are NOT
one and the same., EVEN IF Title 26 is verbatim
identical to the IRC. The one has the force
of law, whereas the other is rebuttable solely
by reason of the fact that it (Title 26) has
NEVER been enacted into positive law.

If you want to play hard ball, just write to
the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and
request (or demand) the Act of Congress
(NOT a resolution, joint or otherwise)
which enacted Title 26 into positive law,
pursuant to the provisions of Title 1, U.S.C.
Give the CIR a reasonable deadline, like
90 days, and then, when they fail to answer,
you should execute an AFFIDAVIT OF DEFAULT,
testifying to their failure to answer.

In such a situation as this, the two court
authorities at U.S. v. Tweel and Carmine v.
Bowen control. The former held that silence
is a fraud, where there is a legal or a moral
duty to speak; the latter held that silence
activates estoppel. Thus, their failure to
produce the Act(s) of Congress which enacted
Title 26, as such, into positive law, will
forever bar them from producing it at any time
AFTER your reasonable deadline. 90 days are
deadline is more in line with administrative

For example, FOIA allows 10 days on the
initial request, and 20 days on a subsequent
appeal, for a total of 30 working days
(excluding federal holidays and weekends).
To be sure we have exhausted our FOIA
administrative deadlines, we routinely use
45 calendar days, which provide more than
enough grace for weekends and federal holidays.

If you are involved in any litigation, then
file your AFFIDAVIT OF DEFAULT in court;
this pleading then is governed by the
Full Faith and Credit Clause and also the
Petition Clause in the First Amendment.
See Hawks v. County of Butte, in the
Supreme Law Library, for really great
authorities on the Petition Clause, e.g.
City of Long Beach v. Bozek. Pleadings
filed in courts are petitions to government
for redress of grievances; as such, they
deserve constitutional protection.

The Citizen's Guide to FOIA and the Privacy
Act is found as an exhibit in one of
Gilbertson's pleadings, now loaded in
the case law section of the Supreme Law Library.
This is the only extant version of this
Citizen's Guide of which we are aware, and
it is, of course, available thereby to the
whole nation FOR FREE!!!

I hope this helps.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Counselor at Law, Federal Witness,
and Private Attorney General

p.s. Your "Badge Book" is just like the
Internal Revenue Manual ("IRM"); it has
about as much legitimate authority as
a pizza recipe on a match book cover.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

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