What law does this?

[Kimokeo]

"Vote a few of the bums out, then they get the message. "

This is a very true statement. Unlike many people who don't agree or interpret the law as does the Judicial system, this is the real method to changing the laws.


Now, where do I find negative law if there is positive law?

[Pottapaug1938]

"Vote a few of the bums out, then they get the message. "

How simplistic. I'm always fascinated at the way Americans still buy into the long-obsolete image of the part-time legislator who rolls down his sleeves, puts down his plow, and travels to the capital to do the People's Business, after which he returns home and picks up the plow again; and he doesn't do that for very long. I'm all for "voting... the bums out" when they deserve it; but I'm not about to vote to do so just because they are the incumbent.I would much rather have "the bums" get "the message" by writing literate letters which have something intelligent to say, showing up at political meetings with more of the same, trying to acquire more than a sound bite's understanding of an issue before I rant loud and long about it, and so on.

[Brandybuck]

I got about halfway through this thread before giving up. 26USCisafraud is clearly a deliberate troll. He has said absolutely nothing substantive, and the only full sentences he's made can be counted on one hand. What he is doing is pushing your buttons like a pro.

Go look at all of his responses. "Nope", "I'm disappointed in you", "You win the cupie doll!", "Wrong answer!", etc. He reminds me of the mindless computer program Eliza. I've seen 14 year olds living in their mom's basement who can argue more intelligently than he can. In fact, I'm beginning to suspect that's exactly what he is, and he just getting a laugh at all your reactions.

[bmielke]

You guys are engaging in a war of wits with an unarmed opponent.

Amen

I got about halfway through this thread before giving up. 26USCisafraud is clearly a deliberate troll. He has said absolutely nothing substantive, and the only full sentences he's made can be counted on one hand. What he is doing is pushing your buttons like a pro.

Which is why I commented once in the very beginning and not since.

Go look at all of his responses. "Nope", "I'm disappointed in you", "You win the cupie doll!", "Wrong answer!", etc. He reminds me of the mindless computer program Eliza. I've seen 14 year olds living in their mom's basement who can argue more intelligently than he can. In fact, I'm beginning to suspect that's exactly what he is, and he just getting a laugh at all your reactions.

I suspected he was the love child from a horrid menage et trois between DMVP, Harvester, and Reenie, and Farmer Giles was his godfather.

[Imalawman]

Still, it is important to refute his idiocy with sound, solid answers for anyone else reading who might be TD-curious, to show them that arguments like those presented by USC26isafraud are dead wrong and why they are dead wrong.

I mean c'mon people, even I have restrained myself from using the nuclear option on him, for the reasons cited above.

It is far better to hold him in the cold, actinic light of reality than immediately destroying him and sweeping him up with a dust pan. It allows people to learn a lot more about failed arguments and why they fail.

Agreed.

[LDE]

Unfortunately, my state, like many others, has been so thoroughly gerrymandered to ensure safe seats for incumbents of both parties that most positions are either unopposed, or have only token opposition by a candidate with few resources and no real chance of winning. "Voting the bums out" is simply impossible.

[LPC]

Fact #1. You and I both know that RRA98 is used for the basis for the current IRS topography where Secretary O'Neill chose to eliminate rather than modify the internal revenue district structure in 2001.

No, I don't know that.

So "Fact #1" is not a fact at all.

Fact #2. After millions in public money was spent on this re-org, the structure that exists today was itself cancelled by the current Treasury Order 150-02. The IRS is totally operating outside the law as a result.

I don't know what you mean by "current Treasury Order 150-02," but according to the website of the Treasury Department, Treasury Order 150-02 was replaced by Treasury Directive 21-01, and Treasury Order 150-02 was canceled in May of 2006.

And I don't understand how the IRS could be operating "outside the law" if the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 gave the Secretary of the Treasury the power to "develop and implement a plan to reorganize the Internal Revenue Service" while specifically providing that the plan developed and implemented by the Secretary would "supersede any organization or reorganization of the Internal Revenue Service based on any statute or reorganization plan applicable on the effective date of this section."

If the Secretary can implement a plan that supersedes statutes, then why isn't the organization of the IRS as dictated by the Secretary automatically valid, regardless of any conflict with any statute or regulation?

Fact #3. There is a multitude of Public Law, USC and CFR sections that rely on the district director position that are not being obeyed by the IRS, thereby denying every American 'due process' every year. Must I list them for you?

As noted above, section 1001 of the "Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998" specifically allows the reorganization plan of the Secretary to over-ride any organizational structure required by statute.

And "due process" is not denied by a federal officer having the wrong title. If you believe otherwise, you need to find some case or other authority that supports what you claim.

Fact #4. The IRS was never created by statute. CHRYSLER CORP. v. BROWN, 441 U.S. 281 (1979) footnote 23. It has grown since 1862 like a cancer on the butt of Uncle Sam. The civil war may have ended racial slavery, but it gave birth of taxation slavery which we have to this day.

As wserra has already pointed out, that's not what Chrysler Corp. v. Brown says.

Tip: If you want to be taken seriously, you should actually take the time to read the authorities you cite, and make sure that they say what you claim, and not just cut-and-paste what other morons have published on the Internet.

And what makes you think a statute is needed to have something called the "Internal Revenue Service"?

Fact #5. When the legal 'experts' on this board get their collective brains stomped in through argument using facts, they resort to name calling, bed wetting, belly aching and towel crying.

You're imagining something that has never happened. The "legal 'experts' on this board" have never had their "collective brains stomped in."

You may be drawing the wrong conclusions from the reactions to your ignorance and obstinate stupidity. You wouldn't be the first to think that being laughed at makes you a Galileo and not a Bozo.

[LOBO]

These aren't fun facts at all!

[notorial dissent]

In other words, if they are laughing at you, and you are not working for Ringling Brothers, then it means you are a clown in the not complimentary sense. And you are indeed a clown.

[Doktor Avalanche]