Summons, Sanctions, and More

[Randall]

You folks are pretty nuts if you think you can convince me of any of that.



Regards,

David Merrill.

You got us there. We are nuts for trying to convince you of anything. It is like trying to convince you that pissing in the wind is not a good thing.

[David Merrill]

Yep. When I am happy and can easily communicate these truths to anybody willing to listen, it is difficult for a bunch of rude Internet personalities to convince me I should be seeking help.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Judge Roy Bean]

The people who need psychiatric help are the last ones to accept that as a fact.

[David Merrill]

The people who need psychiatric help are the last ones to accept that as a fact.

I believe that. But they are usually pretty miserable too.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Nikki]

Unfortunately, David does not present an imminent danger to either himself or others.

He is a total looney tune, but he is safe -- in terms of life and death.

[David Merrill]

...a suit against Jesus Christ, the Son of God, they would have taken that person in for mental evaluation.

Which explains Karen Abott's deadend career... She tried to sensationalize that falsehood too.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[silversopp]

I have requested that the following

http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warr ... /loopy.htm

Be renamed to "Van Pelt"

[John J. Bulten]

You poor taxpayers. But thanks. For now, your ignorance is holding the whole thing together for the international bankers. Those poor bankers - all they have is money.

So well stated, David! It's really funny that the bankers prefer debt to redemption.

Hey, can you give me a little context on this scooter-Jesus-King-Arthur thing, if you have a moment? Perhaps someone linked it and I missed it in the frivolity.

To everyone else, I see this court relied on DC Appeals, Tax Analysts v IRS, for this proposition: "The I.R.C. has been enacted as a separate code and is therefore positive law .... Though both the Statutes at Large and I.R.C. could be said to be authoritative here, we use the 'any papers' language of the original enactment appearing in the Statutes at Large. The difference is irrelevant to the outcome of the case, and we will thus disregard an apparent scrivener's error ['any paper'] made by a codifier without congressional direction" (99-5284).

"Any papers" appears in the SAL for 1958. "Any paper" appears only in 26 USC since 1970 (apparently the court believes but did not state directly that it was also enacted as the IRC of 1986). So they are reminding us that the IRC of 1986, as unamended, is positive law (even though it is unnecessary for the DC case).

However, when the 7th Circuit cites 26 USC 7602(a), one should not infer an unstated assumption that 26 USC is positive law just because the IRC of 1986 (PL 99-514) is positive law. It turns out they say the same thing in 7602(a), but the general attempt to treat 26 USC as positive law should not be entertained as if case law had validated it. If it were, we'd have to press charges against these gents:

The following titles of the Code have been enacted into positive law: 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 46, and 49.

This is explained in the printed volumes of the United States Code, which states that Title 26 is evidence of the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, but that Title 26 itself is not “positive law,” even though the revenue laws enacted by Congress (such as Public Law 83-591 enacted in 1954, or Public Law 99-514 enacted in 1986), all of which can be found in the U.S. Statutes at Large, are “positive law.”

[Red Cedar PM]

When the dreaded duo of Van Pelt and Bulten get together you can count the properly functioning brain cells on one hand. This should be interesting.

[John J. Bulten]

I may have more than academic interest in the Tax Analysts case.

I should add that, if there were a difference found between "any paper" and "any papers", the Court may not pick and choose which it prefers based on the fact that one is SAL 1958 and the other is PL 99-514. It is required to prefer SAL over a Code derived from SAL (and enacted in later SAL).

The law says:

In all courts, tribunals, and public offices of the United States, at home or abroad, of the District of Columbia, and of each State, Territory, or insular possession of the United States - (a) United States Code. - The matter set forth in the edition of the Code of Laws of the United States current at any time shall, together with the then current supplement, if any, establish prima facie the laws of the United States, general and permanent in their nature, in force on the day preceding the commencement of the session following the last session the legislation of which is included: Provided, however, That whenever titles of such Code shall have been enacted into positive law the text thereof shall be legal evidence of the laws therein contained, in all the courts of the United States, the several States, and the Territories and insular possessions of the United States.

The USSC explains why SAL supersedes Code:

This change was effected without substantive comment, and absent such comment it is generally held that a change during codification is not intended to alter the statute's scope.

The Code establishes 'prima facie' the laws of the United States. But the very meaning of 'prima facie' is that the Code cannot prevail over the Statutes at Large when the two are inconsistent.

It will not be inferred that the legislature, in revising and consolidating the laws, intended to change their policy, unless such intention be clearly expressed.

And the USSC acknowledges the statutory source of 7602, further supporting the source's normativeness:

Section 7602 ... has its ascertainable roots in the 1939 Code's 3614 and, also, 3615 (a)-(c).

The legislative history of the Code supports the conclusion that Congress intended to design a system with interrelated criminal and civil elements. Section 7602 derives, assertedly without change in meaning, 13 from corresponding and similar provisions in 3614, 3615, and 3654 of the 1939 Code.

Section 7602, enacted in 1954, was meant to consolidate and carry forward several prior statutes, with "no material change from existing law." [cites omitted] The relevant prior statutes were 3614 and 3615 (a)-(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939.

CORRECTION: I mixed up the Bisceglia footnotes. The correct cite is 420 US 141, 155 and the quote is from the dissent by Justices Stewart and Douglas. But its primary point was reaffirmed en banc in LaSalle just above, as well as by the House and Senate reports it cites.

[LPC]

I may have more than academic interest in the Tax Analysts case.

I can understand why you might have "more than academic interest" in section 7602, but you are making a mistake in equating the legal consequences of (a) differences in language between the 1939 code and the 1986 code and (b) differences in language between the Statutes at Large and the United States Code.

You may do well bullying the rubes at Lost Horizons, but once the legal issues get more than ankle-deep, you're out of your depth.

[notorial dissent]

Possibly because he doesn't understand the difference???? And it would ruin an otherwise nonsensical explanation.

[John J. Bulten]

I can understand why you might have "more than academic interest" in section 7602, but you are making a mistake in equating the legal consequences of (a) differences in language between the 1939 code and the 1986 code and (b) differences in language between the Statutes at Large and the United States Code.

Verbum sat is not your style, Dan. I do not equate "the legal consequences of (a) differences in language between the 1939 code and the 1986 code and (b) differences in language between the Statutes at Large and the United States Code."

The consequence of differences between SAL and nonpositive USC is that SAL supersedes.

The consequence of differences between 1939 IRC and 1986 IRC is as follows. The Act of 2/10/39 (HR 2762) and Public Law 99-514 are both positive law. In the former, the relevant law is certain provisions enacted at sections 3614-5, 3632, and 3654, without change in meaning from the repealed RS and amendments. In the latter, the relevant law is the current summary of these provisions at section 7602, without change in meaning from the sections of the 1939 Act. These two positive laws are not in conflict, because the meaning of 7602 is therefore identical to the meaning of 3614-5, 3632, and 3654, except as explicitly amended.

[grammarian44]

I can understand why you might have "more than academic interest" in section 7602, but you are making a mistake in equating the legal consequences of (a) differences in language between the 1939 code and the 1986 code and (b) differences in language between the Statutes at Large and the United States Code.

Verbum sat is not your style, Dan. I do not equate "the legal consequences of (a) differences in language between the 1939 code and the 1986 code and (b) differences in language between the Statutes at Large and the United States Code."

The consequence of differences between SAL and nonpositive USC is that SAL supersedes.

The consequence of differences between 1939 IRC and 1986 IRC is as follows. The Act of 2/10/39 (HR 2762) and Public Law 99-514 are both positive law. In the former, the relevant law is certain provisions enacted at sections 3614-5, 3632, and 3654, without change in meaning from the repealed RS and amendments. In the latter, the relevant law is the current summary of these provisions at section 7602, without change in meaning from the sections of the 1939 Act. These two positive laws are not in conflict, because the meaning of 7602 is therefore identical to the meaning of 3614-5, 3632, and 3654, except as explicitly amended.

Suppose everything in the above is true, Bulten. What difference does it make to the meaning of 26 USC 7602? Please lay it out for me step by step. And while you're at it, please cite cases that support your interpretation of 7602.

[David Merrill]

Suppose everything in the above is true, Bulten. What difference does it make to the meaning of 26 USC 7602? Please lay it out for me step by step. And while you're at it, please cite cases that support your interpretation of 7602.

That is like the tax liens coming into being as a matter of law according to §6321 but the description as to where to file, according to the Code is found in §6323. The Quatlosers think that because the whole code, which is not enacted into law anyway, has to be found within the scope of a particular section of the Code.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Famspear]

Dear David Merrill:

I think you meant 6321, not 6231. And I think you meant 6323, not 6232. Whatever. --Famspear

[David Merrill]

"Place for filing notice; form. Place for filing. The notice referred to in subsection (a) shall be filed -- with the clerk of the district court. In the office of the clerk of the United States district court for the judicial district in which the property subject to the lien is situated..." Title 26 U.S.C. §6323.

Thanks! I stand corrected about that.

[wserra]

Why do you leave out most of the section, Van Pelt? Especially since the part you quoted usually doesn't apply, that's outright dishonest.

Here's the entirety:

(1) Place for filing.--The notice referred to in subsection (a) shall be filed--

(A) Under State laws.--

(i) Real property.--In the case of real property, in one office within the State (or the county, or other governmental subdivision), as designated by the laws of such State, in which the property subject to the lien is situated; and

(ii) Personal property.--In the case of personal property, whether tangible or intangible, in one office within the State (or the county, or other governmental subdivision), as designated by the laws of such State, in which the property subject to the lien is situated, except that State law merely conforming to or reenacting Federal law establishing a national filing system does not constitute a second office for filing as designated by the laws of such State; or

(B) With clerk of district court.--In the office of the clerk of the United States district court for the judicial district in which the property subject to the lien is situated, whenever the State has not by law designated one office which meets the requirements of subparagraph (A)

And since the laws of every state with which I am familiar does designate an office for filing liens, your pet BS about getting a certificate from the clerk of the district court that there is no lien on file almost never applies. That's the dishonesty.

But what else is new?

[Famspear]

Dear David Merrill: Yes, I don't know the context of your reference to these statutes. I will say that what your quote appears to be an excerpt of section 6323(f)(1)(B), which would apply only in certain states (not sure which ones). I think the provision that would apply in many if not most states would be section 6323(f)(1)(A).

By the way, do you know the basic purpose of section 6323? This is a not trick question - I'm just curious to hear something about the connection between section 6321 and section 6323. (I do sometimes ask trick questions, but I'll try to label them as such when I ask them.) Yours, Famspear

[Famspear]

Well, I see that wserra beat me to the punch in responding. But my question stands for Mr. David Merrill. What do you think the purpose of 6323 is? Yours, Famspear