Is a statutory definition

[Patriotdiscussions]

Meant to enlarge a definition or to supersede a common definition?

Can a definition use the term it is trying to define in its definition?

Example: gun means/includes a gun? Flower means a flower?


The definition of the word definition states that a definition contains only essential parts and leaves out non essential parts.

Do you agree?

Definition comes from the word definite correct?

definite
[def-uh-nit]
adjective
1.
clearly defined or determined; not vague or general; fixed; precise; exact:
a definite quantity; definite directions.
2.
having fixed limits; bounded with precision:



How does this jive with 7701?

You guys imply that the definition of state in 7701 is an enlargement and not a superseding of the common term.

But I have yet to find anything in case law or law books that state anything other then a statutory definition supersedes the common definition.

Like famspear stated, you guys must have seen this 1000 times before, so any chance you could direct me to this missing law of statutory definitions?


Also believe it or not, when the code wants to enlarge the definition they use a term "includes BUT NOT LIMITED TO".

You can find that term used in the irc many,many times.

One would think since as the latest law review on tp points out, this is a major problem with tpers.

Why after 30+ years of people challenging those definitions have they not included, but not limited to?

[Pottapaug1938]

We've answered this question many times before. Read past threads,and you'll find those answers.

I do not propose to give you anything more, on this issue, unless you can not only construct a more coherent premise, but can also tell us what your purpose is in making it.

[Famspear]

Meant to enlarge a definition or to supersede a common definition?

Can a definition use the term it is trying to define in its definition?

Example: gun means/includes a gun? Flower means a flower?

In grade school, we may have been taught by our English teacher that the neither the word you are defining, nor a form of that word, should be used in the definition of that same word. In real life, that "rule" is not really a "rule". For example, it is NOT a rule that is followed by lexicographers in dictionaries, or by lawmakers in statutes.

Example, from a standard dictionary:

explanation (noun):

the act or process of explaining

--Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 403, G. & C. Merriam Co. (8th ed. 1976).

Example, from the Uniform Commercial Code:

"Bank" means a person engaged in the business of banking and includes a savings bank, savings and loan association, credit union, and trust company. [ . . .]

--Texas Business & Commerce Code sec. 1.201(b)(4) (Tex. UCC).

The definition of the word definition states that a definition contains only essential parts and leaves out non essential parts.

Do you agree?

No. You are describing what should be a characteristic of a GOOD definition. However, in real life, and especially in law, what you are describing is not a rule about definitions.

Definition comes from the word definite correct?

Yes, in the sense that the two words can be thought of as "cognates" of each other. The words "definition" (noun) and "definite" (adjective) are related to the verb "define".

How does this jive with 7701?

It doesn't need to "jive" with section 7701 of the Internal Revenue Code. Section 7701 is a STATUTE. In the real world, statutes and definitions do not always conform to the "rules" you learned in grade school.

You guys imply that the definition of state in 7701 is an enlargement and not a superseding of the common term.

No, we don't "imply" that. We are TELLING YOU that. We are explaining the law. This is not a proper subject of debate. You cannot win an argument with us about the meaning of the term "state" as found in section 7701, for the simple reason that you are trying to "reason" your way to your own conclusion.

When we tell you that something is "the law" or that a particular law "means" this or that, we are explaining reality -- how things actually are. We are not giving you our personal opinion about what the law SHOULD be. We are explaining what the law IS.

Law -- American law -- is a subject that can be learned. It is knowable. But it exists OUTSIDE OF YOU. It's not something that you can "determine" by using what you feel are the rules of "logic" or (for example) the rules you learned in grade school about how "definitions" work.

But I have yet to find anything in case law or law books that state anything other then a statutory definition supersedes the common definition.

And your point is: What?

Like famspear stated, you guys must have seen this 1000 times before, so any chance you could direct me to this missing law of statutory definitions?

Collect your thoughts. What is it that you believe is "missing"? What is it that you are looking for?

[Patriotdiscussions]

"[W]here Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion." United States v. Wong Kim Bo, 472 F. 2d 720, 722 (CA5 1972). See United States v. Wooten, 688 F. 2d 941, 950 (CA4 1982).


So in reading the whole irc, where does an enlargement of the definition of state include the 50 states?

If there is no definition of state in the irc that tells me that state means florida, then we have a statutory presumption don't we?

What does the court say about statutory presumptions?

[Famspear]

"[W]here Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion." United States v. Wong Kim Bo, 472 F. 2d 720, 722 (CA5 1972). See United States v. Wooten, 688 F. 2d 941, 950 (CA4 1982).


So in reading the whole irc, where does an enlargement of the definition of state include the 50 states?

If there is no definition of state in the irc that tells me that state means florida, then we have a statutory presumption don't we?

What does the court say about statutory presumptions?

Section 7701(a)(10):

The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

Florida is a state, in ordinary parlance. In other words, in ordinary, every day language, Florida, Minnesota, Wisconsin, etc., are all "states". Under the plain language of section 7701, when you use a word like "state" in a definition, the use of the words "include" or "including" are mean to ENLARGE, not to EXCLUDE something that is otherwise within a given definition. Since "Florida" is otherwise within the meaning of the term "state," the use of the words "include" or "including" in section 7701(a)(10) does not EXCLUDE Florida or any other state.

Section 7701(c) clearly provides:

(c) Includes and including
The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

We've been through this a thousand times. We are explaining how the law works. If you go to court, the court will tell you the same thing.

[Dezcad]

"[W]here Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion." United States v. Wong Kim Bo, 472 F. 2d 720, 722 (CA5 1972). See United States v. Wooten, 688 F. 2d 941, 950 (CA4 1982).


So in reading the whole irc, where does an enlargement of the definition of state include the 50 states?

If there is no definition of state in the irc that tells me that state means florida, then we have a statutory presumption don't we?

What does the court say about statutory presumptions?

Dan Evans addresses this in his Tax Protestor FAQ, including court citations here.

[Famspear]

Oh, and by the way, the Internal Revenue Code does not "need" a definition of "state" that specifically lists the names of all the fifty states, either.

This is another misconception held by poorly-educated people: That everything in the law has to be "defined" in a certain way that "satisfies" these people or "seems logical" to these people. This is a misconception held by a few non-lawyers, by people who are trying to construct their own, idiosyncratic rules about law -- rules that sound "logical" and "technical" to them. This is the phenomenon of the IMAGINARY RULE.

As legal commentator Dan Evans has pointed out, many of the most important words in places like the U.S. Constitution or in federal statutes are not "defined" in those texts.

The "rule" implied by PD -- that there must be a definition of "state" somewhere that physically has the word "Florida" printed within that definition -- is an IMAGINARY RULE.

EDIT: I see that commentator "Dezcad" has posted the link to the Daniel Evans materials on this.

[Patriotdiscussions]

So this below here is just nonsense then?

A circular definition is one that uses the term(s) being defined as a part of the definition or assumes a prior understanding of the term being defined. Either the audience must already know the meaning of the key term(s), or the definition is deficient in including the term(s) to be defined in the definition itself. Such definitions lead to a need for additional information that motivated someone to look at the definition in the first place and, thus, violate the principle of providing new or useful information. If someone wants to know what a cellular phone is, telling them that it is a "phone that is cellular" will not be especially illuminating. Much more helpful would be to explain the concept of a cell in the context of telecommunications, or at least to make some reference to portability. Similarly, defining dialectical materialism as "materialism that involves dialectic" is unhelpful. For another example, we can define "oak" as a tree which has catkins and grows from an acorn, and then define "acorn" as the nut produced by an oak tree. To someone who does not know which trees are oaks, nor which nuts are acorns, the definition is inadequate.

[Famspear]

So this below here is just nonsense then?

A circular definition is one that uses the term(s) being defined as a part of the definition or assumes a prior understanding of the term being defined. Either the audience must already know the meaning of the key term(s), or the definition is deficient in including the term(s) to be defined in the definition itself. Such definitions lead to a need for additional information that motivated someone to look at the definition in the first place and, thus, violate the principle of providing new or useful information. If someone wants to know what a cellular phone is, telling them that it is a "phone that is cellular" will not be especially illuminating. Much more helpful would be to explain the concept of a cell in the context of telecommunications, or at least to make some reference to portability. Similarly, defining dialectical materialism as "materialism that involves dialectic" is unhelpful. For another example, we can define "oak" as a tree which has catkins and grows from an acorn, and then define "acorn" as the nut produced by an oak tree. To someone who does not know which trees are oaks, nor which nuts are acorns, the definition is inadequate.

That's right, IT IS NONSENSE in the real world of legal definitions and DICTIONARY definitions. CIRCULAR DEFINITIONS ARE FOUND IN LAWS AND DICTIONARIES ALL THE TIME.

Indeed, the very first definition you provided in this thread WAS A CIRCULAR DEFINITION, in the sense that it included a form of the word being defined. YOU ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION.

[Patriotdiscussions]

"[W]here Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion." United States v. Wong Kim Bo, 472 F. 2d 720, 722 (CA5 1972). See United States v. Wooten, 688 F. 2d 941, 950 (CA4 1982).


So in reading the whole irc, where does an enlargement of the definition of state include the 50 states?

If there is no definition of state in the irc that tells me that state means florida, then we have a statutory presumption don't we?

What does the court say about statutory presumptions?

Section 7701(a)(10):

The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

Florida is a state, in ordinary parlance. In other words, in ordinary, every day language, Florida, Minnesota, Wisconsin, etc., are all "states". Under the plain language of section 7701, when you use a word like "state" in a definition, the use of the words "include" or "including" are mean to ENLARGE, not to EXCLUDE something that is otherwise within a given definition. Since "Florida" is otherwise within the meaning of the term "state," the use of the words "include" or "including" in section 7701(a)(10) does not EXCLUDE Florida or any other state.

Section 7701(c) clearly provides:

(c) Includes and including
The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

We've been through this a thousand times. We are explaining how the law works. If you go to court, the court will tell you the same thing.

So statutory definitions do not supersede common definitions they just enlarge them?

How would a man of common intelligence see that definition and come to the conclusion that state means florida?

Is dc a state?

So you admit that no where in the code does the definition of state say florida, but we are to assume it does correct?

Again for the win, what is a statutory presumption in regards to due notice and what does the court say about it?

[Famspear]

....To someone who does not know which trees are oaks, nor which nuts are acorns, the definition is inadequate.

In the real world of dictionary definitions and legal definitions, however, circular definitions are NOT INADEQUATE.

Circular definitions, however much we may dislike them in statutes, are not LEGALLY INADEQUATE. Again, statutes are full of circular definitions, and litigants argue about those definitions, and courts issue rulings.

The fact that the real world (whether it be the real world of Webster's dictionaries or the real world of the Internal Revenue Code or the real world of the Uniform Commercial Code) does not conform to what my eighth grade English teacher (God bless her!) taught me about the adequacy of a definition does not change the real world.

[Famspear]

So statutory definitions do not supersede common definitions they just enlarge them?

No. SOME statutory definitions DO supersede common definitions. Other statutory definitions do not. You're wandering off topic.

How would a man of common intelligence see that definition and come to the conclusion that state means florida?

By using his common intelligence. Common intelligence of a normal American adult will tell that adult that Florida is a state. This is not rocket science. It's not even a difficult area of law. It's easy -- for a psychologically normal person.

Is dc a state?

Under which definition? If you're talking about 7701(a)(10), just read the definition.

So you admit that no where in the code does the definition of state say florida, but we are to assume it does correct?

No, I don't "admit" it. I'M TELLING YOU OUTRIGHT, POINT BLANK THAT THERE IS NO FEDERAL STATUTE (THAT I KNOW OF) THAT SPECIFICALLY LISTS THE NAMES OF THE FIFTY STATES SO THAT THOSE STATES CAN BE CONSIDERED "STATES" IN THE LAWS.

Again for the win, what is a statutory presumption in regards to due notice and what does the court say about it?

Wrong question.

Read court cases that interpret the STATUTE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. That means Internal Revenue Code section 7701.

[Duke2Earl]

I have a question. Exactly why are you still playing this silly game with this person?

[Famspear]

I have a question. Exactly why are you still playing this silly game with this person?

Because it's fun. For me, anyway.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Oh, and by the way, the Internal Revenue Code does not "need" a definition of "state" that specifically lists the names of all the fifty states, either.

correct, if they would have not included a definition that supersedes the common definition
This is another misconception held by poorly-educated people: That everything in the law has to be "defined" in a certain way that "satisfies" these people or "seems logical" to these people. This is a misconception held by a few non-lawyers, by people who are trying to construct their own, idiosyncratic rules about law -- rules that sound "logical" and "technical" to them. This is the phenomenon of the IMAGINARY RULE.

in reality it is called due notice, and it does not allow for statutory presumptions. Why not be a champ and tell us about statutory presumptions?

As legal commentator Dan Evans has pointed out, many of the most important words in places like the U.S. Constitution or in federal statutes are not "defined" in those texts.
correct, if no statutory definition is given we use what to define the words? Common meaning at the time the law was enacted correct?
The "rule" implied by PD -- that there must be a definition of "state" somewhere that physically has the word "Florida" printed within that definition -- is an IMAGINARY RULE.

EDIT: I see that commentator "Dezcad" has posted the link to the Daniel Evans materials on this.

Regardless, even were we to grant the Attorney General's views "substantial weight," we still have to reject his interpretation, for it conflicts with the statutory language discussed supra, at 940. The Attorney General, echoed by the dissents, tries to overcome that language by relying on other language in the statute; in particular, the words "partial birth abortion," a term ordinarily associated with the D&X procedure, and the words "partially delivers vaginally a living unborn child." Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 28326(9) (Supp. 1999). But these words cannot help the Attorney General. They are subject to the statute's further explicit statutory definition, specifying that both terms include "delivering into the vagina a living unborn child, or a substantial portion thereof." Ibid.


When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that term's ordinary meaning. Meese v. Keene, 481 U. S. 465, 484-485 (1987)



("It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term"); Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U. S., at 392-393, n. 10 ("As a rule, 'a definition which declares what a term "means" ... excludes any meaning that is not stated' "); Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U. S. 490, 502 (1945); Fox v. Standard Oil Co. of N. J., 294 U. S. 87, 95-96 (1935) (Cardozo, J.); see also 2A N. Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction § 47.07, p. 152, and n. 10 (5th ed. 1992) (collecting cases). That is to say, the statute, read "as a whole," post, at 998

943

(THOMAS, J., dissenting), leads the reader to a definition. That definition does not include the Attorney General's restriction-"the child up to the head." Its words, "substantial portion," indicate the contrary.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... /case.html

[Duke2Earl]

I have a question. Exactly why are you still playing this silly game with this person?

Because it's fun. For me, anyway.

Best answer I've seen.

[Famspear]

You don't need to worry about "due notice" and "statutory presumptions," PD.

The vast majority of normal adults are not burdened with your inability to understand a relatively easy-to-understand definition of "state" found in the Internal Revenue Code.

And, rather than copying and pasting tangential material, stick to court cases interpreting section 7701(a)(10), the provision you appear to be (or perhaps pretend to be) agonizing about.

[Patriotdiscussions]

So statutory definitions do not supersede common definitions they just enlarge them?

No. SOME statutory definitions DO supersede common definitions. Other statutory definitions do not. You're wandering off topic.
I see, and how does the common man reading the law tell the difference? That due notice thing again

How would a man of common intelligence see that definition and come to the conclusion that state means florida?

By using his common intelligence. Common intelligence of a normal American adult will tell that adult that Florida is a state. This is not rocket science. It's not even a difficult area of law. It's easy -- for a psychologically normal person.

why include the definition at all if not to supersede?

Is dc a state?

Under which definition? If you're talking about 7701(a)(10), just read the definition.

in any wAy, shape or form is dc a state? What part of the code needed dc to be called a state for the purpose of putting in a definition?

So you admit that no where in the code does the definition of state say florida, but we are to assume it does correct?

No, I don't "admit" it. I'M TELLING YOU OUTRIGHT, POINT BLANK THAT THERE IS NO FEDERAL STATUTE (THAT I KNOW OF) THAT SPECIFICALLY LISTS THE NAMES OF THE FIFTY STATES SO THAT THOSE STATES CAN BE CONSIDERED "STATES" IN THE LAWS.
as long as there is no superseding definition in the statute they don't have to

Again for the win, what is a statutory presumption in regards to due notice and what does the court say about it?

Wrong question.

Read court cases that interpret the STATUTE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. That means Internal Revenue Code section 7701.

Wrong question? Really? Lol

[arayder]

Unlike the plain speaking, honest and forthright patriots of old PD never comes out and says what he's driving at. It's clear he's angling at the ruse that the meaning of the word "state" in the IRS statute excludes the states of the United States and that the word “State” in the statute means only the District of Columbia.

This ruse fits with PD's previously debunked idea that the "United States” and specifically the federal government is only the District of Columbia.

If PD's spinelessly unspoken conclusion were true then references to “states” in the Internal Revenue Code would apply to nothing at all. . .just what he wants

If PD had bothered to do a little research he'd know that the courts have consistently rejected the claim that the United States does not include the states of the United States!

Most notably in United States v. Steiner, 963 F.2d 381 (9th Cir. 1992).

“Steiner also argued that the word ‘includes,’ which appears throughout the tax laws, limits the court’s jurisdiction under the tax laws. This argument has been specifically rejected in United States v. Condo, 741 F.2d 238, 239 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1164 (1985), in which this court held that the word ‘includes’ is one of expansion, not limitation.”


and;

Depew v. United States, 50 F. Supp. 2d 1009,1015 (D. Colo. 1999)

The claim that “the United States does not include all or a part of the physical territory of the 50 States and instead consists of only places such as the District of Columbia, Commonwealths and Territories (e.g., Puerto Rico), and Federal enclaves (e.g., Native American reservations and military installations),”

-----------------

PD will post on for a few pages and then the thread will be closed after the discussion is reduced to prattle.

[Pottapaug1938]

I have a question. Exactly why are you still playing this silly game with this person?

Famspear: Because it's fun. For me, anyway.[/quote]

Best answer I've seen.[/quote]

I am more guilty than most of being willing to engage trolls like PD. Famspear's response to Duke2Earl works just as well for me; but I would add that I get a certain amount of schadenfreude watching PD twist and turn desperately in an effort to avoid giving direct responses to questions, constructing a coherent premise, and so on. In this case, though, PD has had his original premise -- if one may dignify it thus -- answered; so I do not propose to engage him further on this.