termination of tax liens

[Nikki]

David ???

Please show something in the laws of THIS planet where a federal tax lien requires cetrification.

I was talking about certification Nikki. Every alleged tax liability must be backed by an accounting and the certification of that accounting must be validated by somebody other than the original agent. You know that!


Regards,

David Merrill.

You are merely repeating yourself. What is the law or regulation that establishes "must?"

[David Merrill]

You are merely repeating yourself. What is the law or regulation that establishes "must?"

I doubt you accept Title 26 U.S.C. as law because it says it is not positive law in the preface on the front cover.

But that is okay Nikki. We all prefer you in a world where anyone, including an IRS agent can simply be of the opinion you have a tax liability, and then take away your property.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Paul]

I doubt you accept Title 26 U.S.C. as law because it says it is not positive law in the preface on the front cover.

Which means only that, if there is a difference between the Internal Revenue Code printed in the Statutes at Large and the one printed in the United States Code (something that, before computers, was fairly common because of transcription errors and typos), the version in the Statutes at Large is deemed correct. If the Internal Revenue Code were positive law, it would mean only that the version in the United States Code would be deemed correct.

[Nikki]

You are merely repeating yourself. What is the law or regulation that establishes "must?"

I doubt you accept Title 26 U.S.C. as law because it says it is not positive law in the preface on the front cover.

But that is okay Nikki. We all prefer you in a world where anyone, including an IRS agent can simply be of the opinion you have a tax liability, and then take away your property.

Regards,

David Merrill.

I don't feel like rereading all to 26USC to prove or disprove your allegation.

Either fill in the blank "26USC____" or admit you were just making the "must" up again.

[David Merrill]

I doubt you accept Title 26 U.S.C. as law because it says it is not positive law in the preface on the front cover.

Which means only that, if there is a difference between the Internal Revenue Code printed in the Statutes at Large and the one printed in the United States Code (something that, before computers, was fairly common because of transcription errors and typos), the version in the Statutes at Large is deemed correct. If the Internal Revenue Code were positive law, it would mean only that the version in the United States Code would be deemed correct.

Sounds like fringe mythology. Just the same it justifies that there is no sense showing Nikki where in Title 26 we find requirements for an IRS agent to get an assessment certified before moving to any enforcement process.

It is better to just let her kind continue believing that there is no such requirement. If she feels I am just making it up, then fine.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Nikki]

So, not only does he continue to spin legal requirements out of thin air, he still doesn't comprehend what "positive law" means.

Is anyone in the least bit surprised?

[David Merrill]

LAW, POSITIVE. Positive law, as used in opposition to natural law, may be considered in a threefold point of view. 1. The universal voluntary law, or those rules which are presumed to be law, by the uniform practice of nations in general, and by the manifest utility of the rules themselves. 2. The customary law, or that which, from motives of convenience, has, by tacit, but implied agreement, prevailed, not generally indeed among all nations, nor with so permanent a utility as to become a portion of the universal voluntary law, but enough to have acquired a prescriptive obligation among certain states so situated as to be mutually benefited by it. 1 Taunt. 241. 3. The conventional law, or that which is agreed between particular states by express treaty, a law binding on the parties among whom such treaties are in force. 1 Chit. Comm. Law, 28.

Note: Title 26 in its entirety is not positive law.


Nikki has never told us what makes her any kind of expert. She just parrots mistakes from other Quatlosers, more often than not.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Nikki]

Try another definition of positive law. Perhaps one that relates to the case at hand.

[Randall]

Try Civics 101. Both houses of congress pass the same tax legislation, if the president then signs it, it is the law. Period. The End.

[David Merrill]

Try another definition of positive law. Perhaps one that relates to the case at hand.

That sounds like something Nikki would say. - Keep trying definitions until you get the one that fits the fringe mythology.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Paul]

1 USC Section 4:

"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."

[David Merrill]

1 USC Section 4:

"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."

Like I said:

LAW, POSITIVE. Positive law, as used in opposition to natural law, may be considered in a threefold point of view. 1. The universal voluntary law, or those rules which are presumed to be law, by the uniform practice of nations in general, and by the manifest utility of the rules themselves. 2. The customary law, or that which, from motives of convenience, has, by tacit, but implied agreement, prevailed, not generally indeed among all nations, nor with so permanent a utility as to become a portion of the universal voluntary law, but enough to have acquired a prescriptive obligation among certain states so situated as to be mutually benefited by it. 1 Taunt. 241. 3. The conventional law, or that which is agreed between particular states by express treaty, a law binding on the parties among whom such treaties are in force. 1 Chit. Comm. Law, 28.

[Paul]

Don't have a clue, do you?

[Florida]

Don't have a clue, do you?

[David Merrill]

What I enjoy is that the cover page for all the USC titles does not specify positive law anyway. It simply says that Title 26 has never been enacted into law.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Paul]

Which means nothing except that you have to look in the Statutes at Large, rather than the US Code, for the definitive copy. So do you enjoy looking at the Statutes at Large?

[notorial dissent]

Why should he bother, he has already proven repeatedly that he can't read and comprehend the code, or a simple sentence for that matter, and he is even more lost with the statutes at large as he has proven on numerous occasions.

[David Merrill]

Which means nothing except that you have to look in the Statutes at Large, rather than the US Code, for the definitive copy. So do you enjoy looking at the Statutes at Large?

I understand that there is no point to be made except that since the code is not law, it is unenforceable except in the context of private agreement. That is my point Paul.

Thank you.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Disilloosianed]

David,

I just don't understand the "not positive law" argument. For example here is a copy (evidence, if you will) of the text of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Now, that copy in the paragraph above is not the original or official version of the First Amendment. No one could come to this thread, read that paragraph and rely on it. I may be mistaken. I may have made a typo. I may have lied. But all that being the case, does that mean, because that paragraph is not positive law, that the First Amendment is not law and is only enforceable by private contract?

[.]

Van Pelt thinks that positive law is magic, so you are wasting your breath, so to speak, with your perfectly valid question.

Any answer it gets will be expressed in standard Van Peltian word-salad, because, as has already been pointed out, he has no clue. Not to mention that he's obviously mentally ill.