Posted by Red Hunter on April 17, 1998 at 10:47:01:
In Reply to: 1 USC 204 Positive Law, Title 26 (IRC) not incl & enacted in a separate code posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on April 16, 1998 at 16:55:03:
: : 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
: WAY MORE THAN ENOUGH TIME, since a 30-day
: 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.
Post a Followup