termination of tax liens

[Disilloosianed]

I like to always have hope.

[David Merrill]

Title 26 of the USC has not been enacted into law. That is what it says at the beginning table in all the USC books.

For instance somebody blurted something about a private agreement to kill somebody; since it was a private contract then there is no recourse for murder. Untrue. Take a look at the Table; Title 18 has been enacted into law.

These jokes for intellect pretend not to understand something so simple. I suspect if they were that stupid, they would have given up Internet communications before they ever got started.

And when was the last time you ever heard of anybody being charged with violating the Statutes at Large? Just think about that for a moment.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Nikki]

Still not a clue.

[Cobalt Shiva]

Title 26 of the USC has not been enacted into law. That is what it says at the beginning table in all the USC books.

Show me the exact quote that proves your assertion.

[Kimokeo]

On April 1st, Joe files a tax return with the IRS. He shows a tax of $1,500 and taxes withheld from his pay of $500. He writes out a check for $500 and attaches it to the return.

On April 1, 2007, Joe goes to his bank, completes a deposit coupon and deposits $1000 into his checking account. He had $2000 in the bank at the time. That same day he writes out the $500 to the IRS.

On April 20th, IRS sends Joe a bill. Joe asks for a transcript that he receives on May 1st.

On May 1st, Joe also receives his bank statement.

The IRS sent Joe a printout that shows Tax of $1500, withholding of $500, a payment of $500, and at the top it says he owes $500 plus penalty and interest.

The bank sent Joe a printout that shows a starting balance of $2000, a deposit of $1000 on April 1st, a check drawn of $500 against his account. The remaining balance is $2500, plus interest.

Now, is either printout unreliable? In both cases, someone handled the paperwork and processed it on a computer. In the end, a computer printout was created to show all the actions taken.

If this goes to court, someone will take the transactions on both printouts and confirm that everything on the paperwork agrees with what generated it in the first place.

Why are printouts not acceptable from the IRS but ok from your bank?

[Disilloosianed]

David Merrill wrote:

Title 26 of the USC has not been enacted into law. That is what it says at the beginning table in all the USC books.

I understand that. Title 26, as a whole, in the order in which it is presented in Title 26 was never enacted as positive law, whereas some of the other Titles were. However, if the same information is contained in the Statutes At Large, which should be fairly simply verifiable, what difference does it make? Are you saying that the Statutes at Large aren't valid or are you saying that the government can't charge someone under Title 26, but instead must charge that person by citing to the Statutes at Large?

[David Merrill]

David Merrill wrote:

Title 26 of the USC has not been enacted into law. That is what it says at the beginning table in all the USC books.

I understand that. Title 26, as a whole, in the order in which it is presented in Title 26 was never enacted as positive law, whereas some of the other Titles were. However, if the same information is contained in the Statutes At Large, which should be fairly simply verifiable, what difference does it make? Are you saying that the Statutes at Large aren't valid or are you saying that the government can't charge someone under Title 26, but instead must charge that person by citing to the Statutes at Large?

The difference between law and not law is a big difference, that you admit to. So get back to the last time anyone was charged with breaking the Statutes at Large?

The attorneys around here know better than to even start a cause with Code, especially with no enacting clause. So they proceed on a contract that simply states a violation without citation. Therefore the cause is simply abated as a nuisance.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Cobalt Shiva]

David, you have failed to support your assertion that Title 26 was not passed into law. Please support that assertion before commenting further. Thank you.

[David Merrill]

I have not asserted that Title 26 is not law. It is right there in the cover page of every Title of the U.S.C.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Doktor Avalanche]

I have not asserted that Title 26 is not law. It is right there in the cover page of every Title of the U.S.C.



Regards,

David Merrill.

According to the United States Statutes at Large (published by the United States Government Printing Office) the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, the predecessor to the current 1986 code, was enacted by the Eighty-Third Congress of the United States with the phrase:

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled..”

and was signed into law at 9:45 A.M., Eastern Daylight Time, on August 16, 1954, and published as volume 68A of the United States Statutes at Large.

“Enacted”.

“Signed Into Law”…get it?

Regarding the legal status of the United States Statutes at Large, 1 U.S.C. § 112 provides:

The Archivist of the United States shall cause to be compiled, edited, indexed, and published, the United States Statutes at Large, which shall contain all the laws and concurrent resolutions enacted during each regular session of Congress;. [ . . . ]

The United States Statutes at Large shall be legal evidence of laws, concurrent resolutions, treaties, international agreements other than treaties, proclamations by the President, and proposed or ratified amendments to the Constitution of the United States therein contained, in all the courts of the United States, the several States, and the Territories and insular possessions of the United States. (Emphasis mine)

Although the specific laws imposing an income tax may be generally unknown to persons other than tax lawyers, certified public accountants, enrolled agents and other tax specialists, such laws exist. The Internal Revenue Code section 1 relates to individuals and trusts while section 11 relating to corporations are prime examples of laws that expressly impose an income tax on taxable income.

You know, for not being a lawyer even I know Title 26 is the law.

[David Merrill]

Of course. There you have it. The Statutes at Large are enacted into law. Therefore you should be decapitated for spanking a puppy according to Public Law - the Seven Noahide Laws; and upon testimony of only one witness.

Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded;

Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws;

That was enacted into law too. - According to Rabbi Kuzriel Meir, clerk of court for the Sanhedrin:

This Court, therefore, urges the Attorney General of the United States of America, Janet Reno, currently under the Political Leadership of President Bill Clinton to answer to the charge of failure to hear a grievance that is brought before its duly appointed Courts, and it has 90 working days in which to show cause as to why this case should not be heard before this Court and to submit documents showing that it has conformed with all treaties, conventions and wishes of the native peoples and with states accepted or annexed under the Constitutional principles and Noahide law, which was adopted as Law in the United States by Congress.

It shall be so ordered that Plaintiffs must bear Court, costs. As the...

But seriously now, since you are not an attorney I will quote a most eloquent explanation I included in my video why there is a definite distinction between Titles enacted into law and those not:

The distinction between public and private acts is not always sharply defined when published statutes are printed in their final form: Case v. Kelly, 133 U.S. 21 (1890). Statutes creating corporations are private acts: 20 Am.Jur. 35, p. 60. In this connection, the Federal Reserve Act is private law. Federal Reserve banks derive their existence and corporate power from the Federal Reserve Act: Armano v. Federal Reserve Bank, 468 F.Supp. 674 (1979).

A private act may be published as a public law when the general public is afforded the opportunity of participating in the operation of the private law. The Internal Revenue Code is an example of private law which does not exclude the voluntary participation of the general public. Had the Internal Revenue Code been written as substantive public law, the code would be repugnant to the Constitution, since no one could be compelled to file a return and thereby become a witness against himself.

Under the fifty titles listed on the preface page of the United States Code, the Internal Revenue Code (26 USC) is listed as having not been enacted as substantive public law, conceding that the Internal Revenue Code is private law. Bouvier declares that private law "relates to private matters which do not concern the public at large."

It is the VOLUNTARY use of private credit which imposes upon the user the quasi contractual or implied obligation to make a return of income. In 'Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co.' 158 U.S. 601 (1895) the Supreme Court had declared the income tax of 1894 to be repugnant to the Constitution, holding that taxation of rents, wages and salaries must conform to the rule of apportionment.

However, when this decision was rendered, there was no privately owned central bank issuing private credit and currency but rather public money in the form of legal tender notes and coins...

I include a copy of that important notice at that point in the video - at the 14:30 Minute Mark.

http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... cMoney.wmv


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Tell you what, Mr. Merrill:Van Pelt: you try selling those wolf tickets of yours to a judge and if he/she doesn't throw you under the jail - or laugh you out of court - then I (and possibly everyone else here on Quatloos) will believe anything you say.

It must be nice to espouse theory that you don't have the cajones to put into practice. That way, nobody gets hurt.

[notorial dissent]

He already did, they didn't buy it either, that is why he is intimately familiar with the El Paso County jail and environs.

[David Merrill]

It must be nice to espouse theory that you don't have the cajones to put into practice.

I have never knowingly endorsed a Federal Reserve Note in my entire life! And so therefore I have always had the cajones to practice what I preach. Since I have been preaching though, Congress has raised the $500 frivolous filing penalty to $5000. What's with that?

http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... _money.jpg

And this particular parishoner got all his Withholdings, for two years Refunded. He finds that kind of nice, especially considering he is a state employee.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Doktor Avalanche]

He already did, they didn't buy it either, that is why he is intimately familiar with the El Paso County jail and environs.

So he's been in the klink, has he? That makes sense...

[Doktor Avalanche]

I have never knowingly endorsed a Federal Reserve Note in my entire life!

You don't endorse money?

BTW: I watched that video in that link you posted and I have a piece of advice, for what it's worth:

Any conversation that involves "Freemasons" automatically promotes you to Brigadier General of The Tin Foil Hat Brigade.

[David Merrill]

I have never knowingly endorsed a Federal Reserve Note in my entire life!

You don't endorse money? :?:

BTW: I watched that video in that link you posted and I have a piece of advice, for what it's worth:

Any conversation that involves "Freemasons" automatically promotes you to Brigadier General of The Tin Foil Hat Brigade.

Notified is you.

[Doktor Avalanche]

I have never knowingly endorsed a Federal Reserve Note in my entire life!

You don't endorse money?

BTW: I watched that video in that link you posted and I have a piece of advice, for what it's worth:

Any conversation that involves "Freemasons" automatically promotes you to Brigadier General of The Tin Foil Hat Brigade.

Notified is you.

Oh dear, Mr. M:VP...

I do have to ask; if only to shake once and for all this feeling of incredulity I've been laboring under for the last few hours:

Did you really file a court case citing your motor scooter as a plaintiff?

[Nikki]

David Merrill was never involved in any legal case involving a motor scooter.

That case was filed (and promptly lost*) by a person named David Van Pelt -- who is totally unrelated to David Merrill since they live on completely different planets.

The same applies to the criminal record. David Merrill has never sepnt a day in jail in his entire life since the day he sprung, fully grown, from the brow of his predecessor.

* -- that law suit also bears the distinction of receiving a comment from the judge along the line of "The suit's major flaw was that there was too much space between the cover sheets."

[Demosthenes]

Since I have been preaching though, Congress has raised the $500 frivolous filing penalty to $5000. What's with that?

That was my doing!