Friday, July 20, 2007

N.H. couple evade death and taxes - Los Angeles Times

The Browns have been holed up, refusing to pay the IRS or go to prison. It's a battle that might end in bloodshed.

read more | digg story

Editor's Note:
On today's show on RBN, Elaine said this LA Times reporter visited them 2-3 weeks ago and that "she was as dumb as a box of rocks." Please note that the Brown's, contrary to this article's byline, have not "refused to pay their taxes." The government has refused to show them the law that requires them to file and pay taxes. The Browns have - all along - stated that they would/will gladly pay all taxes that they owe. They cannot find the law that requires them to file and pay the taxes that our government claims they owe.
Bob Schulz, Chairman of We The People Foundation For Constitutional Education - along with 2000+ other plantiffs - have filed a lawsuit 3 years ago yesterday - July 19, 2004 - against our servant government that cites a broad range of Constitutional torts, including evidence of fraud in the misapplication of the Federal Income tax against the labor of Americans working and living in the several states.

Bob Schulz visited the Browns earlier this year and after spending 8-9 hours pouring over their case he filed this report.


Blogger Tyler Moore said...


Why is Title 26 not the law? Just wondering, because though the IRS hasn't shown me the law, others supposedly have. What's missing?

5:14 PM  
Blogger Anonymous said...

It has not been enacted into positive law and is only prima facia evidence of an act of congress where congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction. It is not valid for any national or citizen of any of the several states. More info can be found at

6:25 PM  
Blogger Anonymous said...

Positive law and the United States Code

In the United States the federal statutes are passed by the United States Congress. Some statutes are also "codified" (separately organized and published by subject matter) while others are not. While both codified and uncodified statutes are, in the broad sense, "positive law" (as the term is used above), the term "positive law" also has a separate, more restricted meaning when used to refer to codified statutes (see Codification).

Section 204 of title 1 of the United States Code provides (in part, emphasis added):

In all courts, tribunals, and public offices of the United States, at home or abroad, 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.

See 1 U.S.C. § 204.

According to the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the United States House of Representatives:

Certain titles of the [United States] Code have been enacted into positive law, and pursuant to section 204 of title 1 of the Code, the text of those titles is legal evidence of the law contained in those titles. The other titles of the Code are prima facie evidence of the laws contained in those titles. 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. [1]

6:27 PM  
Blogger Anonymous said...

In the case of titles that are positive law (in the restricted sense), the text of the title itself, as published in the United States Code by the United States Government Printing Office, is conclusive evidence of the exact wording and punctuation of the statute. In litigation over a provision of the United States Code, this means that to determine the actual wording of the statute the court generally will not look beyond the text as printed in the Code itself.

The titles of the United States Code that are not positive law in this restricted sense are sometimes referred to as "non-positive law" (i.e., not "negative law"). The status of a particular provision in a title that is "non-positive" law has no bearing on the "legality" of that provision except to the extent that (due to a typographical error or other variance) the text of the Code does not exactly match the Act of Congress as published in the United States Statutes at Large (also published by the United States Government Printing Office) that is the source of the provision. In the case of a variance, the text in the United States Statutes at Large is the controlling law.

To make matters somewhat more confusing, certain titles of the United States Code such as title 26 (the Internal Revenue Code), while denoted as "non-positive" law (in the restricted sense), actually represent the currently amended version of "positive" law (in the broader sense of a "duly enacted statute"). That is, title 26 of the United States Code, denominated as the "Internal Revenue Code of 1986," as amended, is apparently identical to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 as amended. The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was enacted as positive law (on August 16, 1954), and was also codified as "title 26" of the United States Code.

The designation of a particular title of the Code as "positive" or "non-positive" law usually has little practical significance, as there are very few substantive variances between the texts of statutes as published in the United States Code and the texts of the same statutes in the United States Statutes at Large.

6:30 PM  
Blogger Anonymous said...

Act of Congress
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

An Act of Congress is a statute enacted by the United States Government which legally must be specifically empowered by the United States Constitution. An Act of Congress does not create power, but merely legislates how the existing power of the Constitution is to be used. New federal power can only be given to the United States Government by the people through the Amendment process.

* 1 Procedure
* 2 Other uses
* 3 See also
* 4 References

[edit] Procedure

It is legislation that has passed both Houses of Congress and has been either approved by the President, or passed over his veto, thus becoming law. In other words, a statute or resolution adopted by both houses of the United States Congress to which one of the following events has happened:

1. Acceptance by the President of the United States,
2. Inaction by the President after ten days from reception (excluding Sundays) while the Congress is in session, or
3. Reconsideration by the Congress after a Presidential veto during its session.

The President promulgates acts[1] of Congress made by the first two methods. If an act is made by the third method, the presiding officer of the house that last reconsidered the act promulgates it. (See 1 U.S.C. § 106a, "Promulgation of laws.")

Under the United States Constitution, if the President does not return a bill or resolution to Congress with objections before the time limit expires, then the bill automatically becomes an act; however, if the Congress is adjourned at the end of this period, then the bill dies and cannot be reconsidered (see pocket veto). In addition, if the President rejects a bill or resolution while the Congress is in session, a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Congress is needed for reconsideration to be successful.

Acts of Congress that become law are published in the United States Statutes at Large. Nearly all acts are drafted as amendments to the United States Code (published by private companies for the benefit of practicing lawyers), so the United States Code will change to reflect the addition, modification, or removal of text by a particular act.

The powers of Congress are fairly broad, but no act of Congress may violate the Constitution, nor otherwise exceed the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution. Otherwise, the United States Supreme Court can declare the act to be unconstitutional.

Notably, the judicial declaration of an act's unconstitutionality does not automatically excise it from the United States Code. It merely implies that any further attempt to enforce the act in the courts would be futile. The modified statutes in the versions of the United States Code will be annotated with warnings indicating that the statute is no longer good law. But the statute will continue to be present in the Statutes at Large, and it will not disappear from the United States Code unless and until another act of Congress explicitly removes it.

6:34 PM  
Blogger Tom said...

JJ MacNab (who adds the unnecessary commentary in the article from LA Times) wrote an interesting paper. I fully support Ed and Elaine and I think the article is a very real way to understand what the gov't fears.

What an incredible read...

8:28 PM  
Blogger Scott C. Haley said...

J.J. MacNab starts from the false premise that the Fed Income Tax DOES apply to an average American's wages.

Just because there are shoddy tax evasion schemes around does NOT prove that the Income Tax applies to most individuals. He offers no
breakdown of Title 26 to show that his initial premise is true. He simply assumes that it's true.

3:24 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home