reb
Forum Replies Created
-
Bing has mentioned:
Quote:and you can read an admission where a US Congressman admitted in YEAR 1919, that it was impossible to know what the statutory laws of the USA really are.Imagine that!!!
Well, the way I understand it, the laws were not organized in the various codes at that time. After the various 50 titles (or less) were established in specific areas, then the laws became organized. I believe the U.S. printing office also prints a non-official, non-annotated U.S. code.
Today, West Publishing sells the USCA with the annotations and Bancroft sells USCS with their annotations with continuous updates in the back cover. Reference to the Statutes at Large is available to confirm West and Bancroft accurately reproduce the law.
I could not get your address—- http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByT…-1919to1920.pdf to work.
[My computer has not updated the famguardian file until I posted the last article. I believe this is in agreement with what I now read you have posted.]
-
Bing,
We are only discussing what 10 lines contained in Section 4 establish.
You have asked for time to analyze. Is there any response ??
Reb
-
A few more thoughts on the Statutes at Large.
I agree with Bing. I know of no other time an entire Title has been published as a separate volume of the SAL except for the two volumes related to Title 26. It is known that the 1954 volume involved a complete reorganization of the structure that could not have been communicated by a piecemeal add-and-delete. I assume the 1939 separate volume may have had a similar background.
An earlier question was raised as to why the SAL has not been put on a website. I believe the answer is easy; because it would not be of any practical use.
As Bing has pointed out, each SAL contains what may be very small changes to a number of Titles. The changes involve random issues within random Titles. If a researcher was wanting a specific issue in a specific Title and had to use the SAL as a source, he would have a nightmare.
The government must publish the law and make it a public record. A government that does not inform the citizenry of the law is a tyranny. I don't believe the government is required to publish it in an organized form. Private companies have taken the SAL and organized the code with annotations. USCA is published by Westlaw (right?) and USCS is published by Bancroft-Whitney (right?) Revisions published in the SAL are provided for each Title with updated supplements inside the rear cover. The supplements identify the SAL for each change if a researcher wants to read it.
I have researched the law for 30 years and only in the last week have I ever used the SAL.
-
Bing has written:
Quote:If I read you right, you are saying that from 1939 until 1954, the 1939 IRC was in force. Is that correct?yes
What has been identified as Section 4 of SEDM exhibit 1023, REPEAL AND SAVINGS PROVISIONS, (The two pages were attached as a headnote to the new 1939 code) repealed all revenue laws that were operative as of January 2, 1939. The repeal of those laws became effective February 11, 1939 (one day after the enactment date of the new 1939 code, February 10, 1939.)
That is the way I understand Section 4.
-
Franklin has commented on the Vroman court's reliance upon the Hamlin Opinion:
Quote:Thanks too for the lead about the Hamlin case and how they use that for authority that a statute can be vague.The essence of the legal profession is to be very precise. Using the wrong word can end up with bad results.
The Vroman court relied upon the Hamlin requirement that elements “of the offense charged” was complied with. Vroman altered that to read that mere elements WITHOUT AN OFFENSE IDENTIFIED was sufficient. Vroman also accepted the position that the government had proven the taxpayer was required to pay a tax. Since the indictment only alleged IRC 7201 (or 7203 ?) which can apply to ANY tax enforced by the IRS, a “known legal duty” required for a valid indictment was not even alleged.
The liability statute in Vroman was not “vague”, it was absent. There is a world of legal difference between being vague and not being present at all. [The statute in the Hamlin case was indeed vague. It is very difficult to make a precise, indisputable defination of obscene.]
-
Bing has stated:
Quote:Are you suggesting that the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 WAS NOT REPEALED?If so, I respectfully dissent.
In an attempt to restate my previous post, what is posted as SEDM 1023 is the equilivant of a two page transmittal letter inserted as a headnote to the 1939 code. That Act (H.R.2762) repeals all of the internal revenue laws that were in force on January 2, 1939. (read Section 4) The repeal is effective “except as provided in section 5, on the day following the date of the enactment of this act.” (read section 4)
The new “Internal Revenue Title, as hereinafter set forth (the 1939 code that follows the two page transmittal letter/Act 2762/SEDM exhibit 1023), is intended to include all general laws of the United States and parts of such laws, relating exclusively to internal revenue” that are in force on the 2nd day of January 1939. (read section 4). This identifies the affirmative establishment of the voluminous code that follows section 10 (the end paragraph of the two pages at SEDM 1023).
But the question is whether the 1939 code was repealed.
Yes it was. It was undoubtedly repealed in 1954 in a similar manner with the installation of the 1954 code. The installation of the 1939 code performed by SEDM 1023 repealed the revenue laws that existed prior to 2nd of January 1939.
-
Bing has asked the question:
Quote:If the US Statutes at Large is THE LAW in the USA, and it supersedes the unenacted USC titles, and if the Citizens, are, as the US Supreme Court has asserted, responsible for knowing the Law, then how come the US Government has STILL failed to scan in the US SAL Volumes and put them on the internet and make them accessible for free?Why?
I suggest it may be because the SAL are, for the most part if not all, redundant.
Volume 68A is the same as Title 26 as it was established in 1954.
But why, we might ask, is it not then positive law ? I suspect it is because of the way 68A was originated. The volume was compiled by IRS committees working with legislative committees to completely regroup and rearrange the IRC code of 1939. As one example, all of the criminal penalties were spread throughout the 1939 code but were grouped together in Chapter 75 of the 1954 code. The committees, as a requirement of regrouping, had to change some of the phrases and also changed the application of some of the laws. Some of the previous penalties applied only to one or two of the taxes. The Supreme Court in the Sansone case noted that some penalties that applied to only one offense were intended by the committees to be applied to all of the offenses in Title 26. So Mr. Sansone was punished for an offense that was not authorized prior to 1954 by legislation. The committees altered legislation. Sansone challenged the application of a penalty to a new offense and the court, relying upon statements in the transmission documents that the application was deliberate, upheld the conviction. If the court had not been able to find positive evidence of deliberate expansion of the provisions of Chapter 75, it appears they would have been required to rule in Mr. Sansone?s favor.
The 1954 code was not positive law whereby NO challenge could be raised to individual provisions. It had to be supported by a specific legislated authorization for each component.
-
Confusion appears apparent about 53 Stat 4 and exhibit 1023 at SEDM.
The way I understand it from the law library is the 1939 tax code was legislated to be a self-standing volume of the statutes at Large. That volume has been designated as 53 Stat Part 1. Other laws passed by Congress in 1939 were printed in 53 Stat Part 2.
[The 1954 code was also specified to be printed in a separate volume and became 68 Stat, A. Two other volumes, 68 Stat Part 1 and 68 Stat Part 2 contain all other laws passed in 1954.]
SEDM Exhibit #05.027 was the specific two page Act (H.R. 2762) passed by Congress on February 10, 1939. Ref. Upper right hand corner. That Act, with the date of enactment, bill number, public and chapter number, serves as the head note to the Code. Ref. Section 9 on page 2. The legislated code immediately came after ?follows:? in Section 10 as compiled in 53 Stat Part 1. The Act had to be voted upon by Congress, signed by the Speaker of the House and also by the President.
Let us turn to Section 4, REPEAL AND SAVINGS PROVISIONS, and permit me to add to the writing. The way I read it, it specifies that all of the new law (?as hereinafter set forth?) is supposed to include all of the previous laws (?is intended to include all general laws of the United States and parts of such laws?) that were in force on January 2, 1939. Because of that (?In furtherance of that purpose?) ?all (earlier) laws and parts of (earlier) laws codified herein? are repealed on February 11, 1939 (?on the day following the date of the enactment of this act.?) Whatever clarity in composition might have been missed, the intent of the provision is to enact the new law and repeal all of the old law one day later
Section 5 makes sure all the old laws remain in effect until the new laws replace them.
I do not see anything that relates to a placement of burden on the IRS.
There has also been a mention in this thread of District courts operating under ?territorial? jurisdiction. Becraft and Cryer have both written warnings of this misconception. All case citations that make such a reference have been adjudications in Porto Rico. Article III courts exist only within the 50 states. Areas that are not states, such as Kansas and Oklahoma before statehood, Guam, Porto Rico, Gitmo, etc., are governed directly by congress and are not automatically eligible for a grant of constitutional rights. [We might reflect on the recent torture evasion in Gitmo—outside of constitutional protection.] Jurisdiction of all District courts is restricted to a specific geographical area but do not allow any inadvertent use of ?territory? in that context to be extended to the ?territory? of Article IV.
-
Bing,
Quite by coincidence, my mailbox contained a bulk mailing informing me the Statutes at Large are posted at :
> Vols. 41 thru 121 of the U.S. Statutes at Large are all now posted here:
> http://whatistaxed.com/statutes_at_large.htm
53 Stat (Act) 4 appears to be about the street lighting of D.C. (in the index) but I do not find the same numbers in the body.
Wilkipedia also enlighten me about the Statutes at Large.
30 years of research and I have been exposed to an entirely new concept of the compiling of laws.
You stated the tax code was repealed in Volume 68. Volume 68, in two parts at the above URL, contains 1300 pages. I have not yet found ?income tax.? I will have to find a hard copy at the library. This has become so perplexing. I do not understand why the code was repealed.
How much difference have you found between the Statutes at Large and what is published as Title 26 ?
I appreciate the education but it is not yet clearer.
The link you posted (www.gpo.access.gov ) is to the regulations (CFR) identified at the URL as Code. You are not suggesting the regulations have the same standing as law are you ??
Reb
-
The information reports sent to the IRS by third parties you identify are quite different from any type of report that might have been a part of an Information served on a defendant to initiate a criminal action that I had erroneously assumed. It would appear they might be admissable as evidence only if the prosecution can obtain an assumption that an Income Tax identified by Section 1 is before the court. But that is a trial tactic again and not a challenge to the indictment.
It is my understanding there are only 50 Titles of law with Title 26 being the IRS Code. I am unaware of #53 Stat 4. I believe the Statutes at Large are found in the Congressional Record with a very difficult numbering system by page number.
As to the 1954 code repealing the 1939 code, well, probably technically, no. It is a convenient way to convey the concept. As I understand the congressional procedure, the new code was written by a committee. The 1939 code was totally reorganized by the committee for alleged clarity. For example, all punishments were removed from the statutes detailing each tax and were grouped in Chapter 75. (IRC 7201 through 7215). There is a tabulated cross-reference list that identifies were the old provisions went (new numbers) and any laws that might have been added or changed. Congress then passed an Act XX that would void the 1939 code on the last day of 1953. The same Act XX also declared the committee's rewritten code would become effective on the first day of 1954. So, technically, Act XX repealed the 1939 code. Or this is the way I believed it worked.
Reb
-
Bing,
Your latest post is a bit perplexing. Any follow-up on challenging an indictment is absent, nor is there any continuation on the concept of evidence at trial, or the use of a non-resident alien status.
We both know the IRC is not positive law. The code changes so frequently and the IRS completely rewrites the entire code (as in 1954) at its leisure. If the legislated enactments are evidenced at trial to differ from what is compiled in the code, the legislation is to be followed, as you have stated.
The 1939 code had to be repealed in 1954 and the predecessor to the 1939 code was repealed in 1939. The old code was repealed and the new code was authorized, as I believe you stated.
You mention 53 Stat. 4. It appears to be an incomplete citation. Where would it be found or would you wish to paste it ??
As for any transfer of the burden of proof to the IRS by 53 Stat 4, if the provision applies to tax court after a show by a petitioner of significant evidence, the concept might be understood. In a criminal proceeding in judicial court, the burden of proof of showing a valid tax and a known legal duty statutorily imposed upon the defendant, if due process is followed, is constantly upon the government.
If you are going to contend 871 provisions apply only in D.C. to the judge, I am sure you are going to have copious citations available to persuade him.
People who have supplied information on forms mailed to the government do indeed have additional problems. If they signed their name over a line under-scribed with ?taxpayer?s name? and ?taxpayer?s address,? they have declared under oath that they are subject to a revenue tax described on the form.
The last sentence is a bit confusing. What is the ?Information report? ? I certainly concur judges, both federal and state, have very low respect for truth or justice—just like the Mafia.
Reb
-
Bing,
I certainly respect your option to question the positions taken. It is only by discussion of various viewpoints that we can reach a better understanding of the situation than can either individual on his own.
The post was a summary of 36 pages of legalese.
You mention the use of regulations. The entire objective of the writing is a challenge to the validity of an indictment/information as used by the DOJ. The discrediting of regulations was for the specific elimination of any use of IRS documents, manuals, letters, etc. that may for some reason have been relied upon PRIOR to litigation. As a first point, the DOJ does not rely upon any regulations in indictments (to my knowledge). Second, if the DOJ did make such use of regulations in an indictment, are you suggesting they would be sufficient to establish the validity of any tax ?? If you do, I believe I can find copious case law that runs counter to your position. A tax must be established by legislation. Regulations are not legislation.
Regulations are certainly admissible as evidence of the IRS position on tax issues but I decline to agree they can be used to establish the validity of a tax. The taxable position of a nonresident alien is discussed below. As a trial tactic, if IRC 871 has been assumed by the defendant as the imposed tax, should regulations relevant to that section be introduced as evidence to show non-applicability?? It would appear a defendant would not want to introduce any regulations relating to a tax not statutorily identified in the indictment. Such an act would acquiesce to the status of responsibility for that tax. In fact, if the prosecution attempted to discuss any tax other than the one assumed by the defendant, it would appear an objection would be in order since the indictment does not identify any statutory tax other than what the defendant has assumed. Discussion of any other tax would be out of order: i.e. any discussion of a tax imposed by IRC 1 should be out of order since it is not alleged in the indictment and put into contestation.
You state: ?I genuinely think the Regs can be effectively used, if not in litigation, than (then) most certainly as a preemptive tool in affidavits filed with the IRS to justify the foundation of one's reasonable good faith belief that they were not required to pay income taxes to the IRS.? To repeat myself, prior to court, the regulations are open for whatever use. If you allow yourself to discuss the regulations relevant to IRC 1, with or without affidavits, in court, it would appear you have already accepted the position you are responsible for that tax. You have allowed the burden of proof to be shifted onto the defendant. I may be out of touch with reality as the court continues to pound the legal identification of a taxpayer that is subject to the regulations into my head, but if they do so identify me, I have lost the case. My position is that the legal identification of a taxpayer MUST be alleged in the indictment—not by oral assertion by a judge. A demand for the judge to identify ON THE RECORD what he claims to be the law that identifies me as a taxpayer would appear to be proper to preserve appeal. (A judge cannot lawfully append an indictment in such a manner.) If the judge does not pound me into the ground and deny due process, the income tax is dead.
We had a brief discussion on Evidence Rule 201 several months ago and I did not have the research finished. The Supreme court in Sansone v United States, 380 US 343 relied upon the Congressional Record to hold Chapter 75 (IRC 7201 through 7215) applied to ALL taxes collected by the IRS. ?Congress specifically stated that it placed all these provisions (26 USC ?7201 through ?7217) in the same part of the Code because it wished them to apply to taxes generally, including income taxes.? id. 348. The Congressional Record of the 1954 rewriting of the tax code relied upon by the Sansone court reads: ?In this Chapter [75] all criminal offenses [within Title 26] are brought together, as are all other offenses, and all provisions relating to forfeitures, except those relating to alcohol, tobacco, and certain firearms.? Senate Report @ p147; House Report @ p108. Ref. U.S. Revenue Acts, 1954 Legislative Histories, Vol. 1, 2, KF6275.8, 1982. Would any of this information be usable in a jury instruction to inform the jury IRC 7201 et al. does not identify an income tax violation ??? Unfortunately, I am not familiar with the regs you mention but if they are helpful, it would appear to be an easy was to get them to the jury. But this is a trial tactic and a diversion from the validity of an indictment.
Your mention of the tax on non-resident aliens is food for thought. My 1977 copy of the Code imposes an income tax on them at IRC 871. If the court denies the Motion to Dismiss the indictment for failure to identity statutory liability, could a defendant then assume a statute that imposes liability, such as IRC 871, and file another motion to dismiss with an affidavit that the defendant is not a nonresident alien and therefore the assumed income tax does not apply ?? Remember, IRC 7201 alleged in the indictment applies to IRC 871 and also to the corporate tax IRC 11. Or is this the approach on NRA that has been used in the past ?
I hope I addressed each of your concerns.
Reb
-
The Motion to arrest judgment was written for SPJ after several email exchanges with her. It appears her lawyer, who she dismissed prematurely, talked her out of filing it.
The lengthy pdf file posted by Admin was filed by a pro se in florida in 1996. It lacks a lot of clarity and more recent research such as the Sansone case. It is assumed the court denied it.
A new writing discussing the Vroman case taunted by LB as a typical appellate court Opinion upholding current indictments is being finalized.
-
The way I hear it, the BS executives gave themselves bonus worth millions in January.
If BS had gone into bankruptcy, the bonuses would have had to be returned.
We all know, the chairman just cashed out his $61 million of shares. The employees' pension plan was dissolved.
The Fed is working to support the financial institutes as its working buddies. The public gets shafted. :huh:
Reb
-
I am sure you are aware that less than 5% of the Petitions for Cert. are granted ??
Reb