Losthorizoner "MN Stix" sounds tired

[Famspear]

Remember losthorizoner "MN Stix"? Get a load of the latest droolings:

expat, the IRC has NEVER been enacted into positve [sic] law. The IRC is merlely [sic] evidence of a law existing. A statute at large is NOT positive law...it is a statute not yet enacted into positive law. That is what a prima facie law is. Prima facie law (titles, etc) rely on the law (positive) as legal (enorceable [sic]) evidence.

Tile 1 U.S.C is indeed another positive law. The definitions in title 1, will be uniform with all other positive law titles. One positive law title may define for the title or chapter, the SPECIFIC government controled [sic] "employee" etc. being discussed.

Yes, Title 1 is relevant and as you can see above, title 5 is a title also pointed to for guidence [sic].

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 5593#15593

What a mess.

Is it my imagination, or is the stress at losthorizons just wearing those people out? I get the impression over the past few weeks of a very tired group of crooks.

At this point, MN Stix cannot even keep the tax protester delusions straight - piling misunderstanding on top of misunderstanding on top of delusion.

Stix, get your terminology straight. Here's the lesson again, for the umpteenth time.

Stix, the United States Statutes at Large (published by the U.S. Government Printing Office) is an actual, physical set of bound volumes that you can see at a library. This publication is conclusive proof of the enactments of Congress -- that means it is POSITIVE LAW. Read it again: The "Internal Revenue Code of 1954" (volume 68A of the United States Statutes at Large), as amended and renamed the "1986" Code, as amended, etc., etc., is POSITIVE LAW. Every single amendment to the 1954 Code was enacted by Congress, is published in the United States Statutes at Large, and is POSITIVE law -- not "prima facie," and not "non-positive." In 1986, the name of the Code was changed to "1986" Code. The statute enacting that name change is one of the amendments physically published in the Statutes at Large. POSITIVE law!!

By contrast, "title 26 of the United States Code" -- which is also called the "Internal Revenue Code of 1986", etc., and which is also published by the same U.S. Government Printing Office, is what we call "non-positive" law. That means that it's prima facie evidence of the law. Notice that I did not say that it’s “not the law.” I said: It’s “non-positive” law. Non-positive law is STILL THE LAW. That means that if you, Stix, think that it’s not “really” the law, THE BURDEN IS ON YOU TO PROVE THAT THERE'S A PRINTER'S ERROR, ETC., SOMEWHERE. YOU, STIX. Y-O-U! THE BURDEN IS ON YOU, THE PARTY CLAIMING THAT IT'S NOT THE LAW.

For the umpteenth time, "prima facie" does not mean "not really the law."

And for the umpteenth time, the phrase "non-positive law" does not mean "not really the law." NON-POSITIVE LAW IS STILL THE LAW.

Regardless of whether you read each and every amendment to the Internal Revenue Code in the physical, hard-bound publication known as the U.S. Statutes at Large (from the Gov't Printing Office),

....or you read the hard-bound "title 26, Internal Revenue Code" (also from the Gov't Printing Office),

....or you read the "Internal Revenue Code" on the Cornell Law School web site,

....or you read the "Internal Revenue Code" in Westlaw,

....or you read the Lexis version of the "Internal Revenue Code",

....or you read the CCH version of the "Internal Revenue Code",

....or you read a version physically printed on the back of a restaurant menu in red crayon.....

as long as it is a verbatim reprint of the actual text of the Internal Revenue Code as published in the U.S. Statutes at Large . . . . .

....IT'S STILL THE LAW, you dimwit!!!!!!!!!

Get a f*****g clue, Stix!!!

And take some vitamins.

[Dezcad]

MN Stix has a whole thread on this - http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1635

Here's part of the first post:

What some seem to be missing, is that prima facie titles are only legal evidence of the law. How can we translate this? We have learned that positive law titles are in fact, the law. We have learned that prima facie titles are those sufficiently evidenced by law. Lets translate into plain English shall we? Prima facie law titles, are those that require a positive law title as evidence of it being a law.

Now that we know these things, we can prove that Title 26 does have sufficient legal evidence of law, or better said, evidence of being supported by a positive law title. Title 26 must have a direct link to a positive law title, or it cannot exist. Judging by all lost tax cases, we absolutely must concede to the fact that title 26 is indeed supported by such a title, as to give it prima facie status.

We can look back in time, at Title 26. Some will argue that if we go back far enough in time, we will find a time that it was a positive law. This is pointless as it doesn’t really matter. Title 26 does not rely on older versions to retain its prima facie status. Nor can older versions of this title define any terms found in the current one.

We need to understand that title 26 has to rely on the language of a positive law title to give it the needed evidence of law. All we really need to do, is to search for the positive law title that supports the legal status of title 26. In order to do that, we first have to find the direct link made to a positive law title on which title 26 relies. The only title I could come up with, is Title 5. You will note that earlier, we have a list of all positive laws. Of these laws, title 5 is indeed a positive law. What does this mean? It means that a definition of a term in Title 26 is useless without the definition of the term in Title 5.

I will go out on a limb and say that title 26 will never become enacted into positive law. The simple reason is, they would have to adopt a list of everyone the tax applies to. If you bother to read title 5, you will understand exactly why that will never happen.

Anyone wishing to help me find proof of other positive law titles being used in title 26, would be great. The thing is, employment is already defined in title 5. Employment cannot be redefined by any other positive law title

and further down he writes-

Statutes, regulations, etc., really only serve to confuse the issue. The real issue is, congress can pass laws. Those laws can become a positive law, the law itself. Or, those laws may be based on another law, which become the prima facie laws. Prima facie laws need the supporting positive law to give it legal force. Without that supporting positive law, the prima facie law, cannot be a law at all.

and this gem-

I think its time to move on with the Titles. I wanted to point out a few other things I find very interesting. First, getting back to these Titles. I think I can make a few conclusions. The first of which, is that positive law Titles are those that apply to everyone. These are law titles that directly link to the constitution...or what is accepted as law for all. A prima facie title is one created for something created by acts of government. It is a law title requiring the support or direct link to a positive law and therefore the constitution.

I will sum up the above by saying prima facie laws, are those created for very specific entities, governments, foreign governments etc. The are NOT created for everyone. So begs a question as it applies to title 26 court cases, which is the Title that the IRS operates under. Why is it in every lost IRS case that I have read, not once has the person being preyed on by the government, ever objected to the government waiving its "sovereign immunity"?

The IRS does not have sovereign immunity as it relates to American Citizens. Remember, no part of government can grant itself freedom beyond the contitutional restraint. Another thing is, when the government waives its sovereign immunity, you are no longer arguing a case based on title 26 or any other prima facie title. You are being warped into reality and no one invited you with.

[Famspear]

In fairness to those people, part of the problem is that most of them probably have never been to a real law library. They can't really picture what is really being discussed.

The phrase, "Internal Revenue Code of 1954/1986" as amended, in isolation, can be interpreted to mean Volume 68A of the United States Statutes at Large and every page of each subsequent volume that contains any amendment thereto. I suspect the vast majority of tax deniers have never "clicked" -- that we are talking about an actual, physical set of bound volumes in a law library. My bound copy of the "Internal Revenue Code" published by CCH here on the shelf in my office is, in this sense, not "positive law," since it's not part of the actual, physical object called the "United States Statutes at Large."

What's confusing those people in part is that they don't understand the legal difference between the actual, physical, object (the object published by the U.S. Government Printing Office and shipped out to law school and university libraries) called the "United States Statutes at Large", and all the other versions of said same.

If these dimwits only understood that this very legal difference is insignificant (i.e., as long as the physical version of the law you are reading is, in fact, a verbatim reprint of the "actual" law), they MIGHT understand my point about the validity of the law as printed in red crayon on the back of a restaurant menu.

I would suspect that the vast majority of these people have no concept of the fact that the vast majority of "sources" of law -- in the sense of the actual, physical objects -- are published by private publishing companies such as West. Most of the U.S. federal and state case law that is used by lawyers and judges is, of course, physically published (or, perhaps we should say "re-published") by West and other private companies, not by "government" printers.

For years, I have watched goofy tax deniers give themselves fits as they tie themselves in swirling, dizzy, circular, verbal knots -- trying to convince each other that the terms "prima facie" and "non-positive," as applied to the actual, physical "title 26" version of the Code, somehow mean that the law is not really the law, and that they have "found" some magic clue that makes them "not liable" for the federal income tax.

What a sad, clueless group of people!

[LPC]

A statute at large is NOT positive law...it is a statute not yet enacted into positive law.

Yes, the "at large" part of "statute at large" means that the statute is unconfined or unfenced. An example of "free-range legislation," if you will. It is only after the legislation has been lured into a Faraday cage with a positive charge that it becomes a "positive law."

[Nikki]

You HAVE to lay off those care packages from Wehhick.

[.]

Funny how over the last 50 years not one single nitwit TP or even one of the many tens of thousands of tax lawyers who have practiced during that time has found some discrepancy between 26 USC and the Statutes at Large that has resulted in a court ruling that some word or provision in 26 USC was incorrect and somehow not consistent with the Statutes at Large (and the literally thousands of amendments affecting 26 USC contained therein) and that therefore the litigant was not liable for whatever was at issue.

I guess it's a lot more fun to waste thousands of hours ranting and raving about "positive law" than to face reality.

[Lambkin]

Ever see a dog chase its tail? Eventually it gets dizzy and/or tired and falls down, curls up and takes a nice nap. In a few minutes, he'll be ready for his nap.

Or maybe his head explodes? Here's hoping!

In ancient rome
There was a poem
About a dog
Who found two bones
He picked at one
He licked the other
He went in circles
He dropped dead
Freedom of choice
Is what you got
Freedom from choice
Is what you want

[silversopp]

In fairness to those people, part of the problem is that most of them probably have never been to a real law library. They can't really picture what is really being discussed.

I've never been in a real law library in my life, but I find it impossible to follow their nonsense.

I don't believe that sending these folks to a law library is going to change anything. At best, they just start posting how their must be a secret entranceway that guards the "super-positive law" that overrules the US Statutes At Large. And for evidence, they will take a picture with their camera phone of a door that says "Authorized Personnel Only," from a nearby Burger King, followed by a ten paragraph discourse on who, or what, grants the special doorway authorization. The epic conclusion will be the claim that a few farmers in Ohio once snuck in and are now using the laws they learned there to mate with chickens without fear of arrest.

[Dezcad]

Even more legal brilliance at LH - http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1660

(a) Commencement of Action: A lien and levy action under Code sections 6320 (c) and 6330 (d) shall be commenced by filing a petition with the Court. See Rule 20, relating to commencement of case; Rule 22, relating to the place and manner of filing the petition; and Rule 32, regarding the form of pleadings.
(b) Content of Petition: A petition filed pursuant to this Rule shall be entitled “Petition for Lien or Levy Action Under Code Section 6320 (c) or 6330 (d)”, as applicable, and shall contain the following:
(1) In the case of a petitioner other than a corporation, the petitioner’s name and legal residence; in the case of a corporate petitioner, the petitioner’s name and principal place of business or principal office or agency; and, in all cases, the petitioner’s mailing address and taxpayer identification number (e.g., Social Security number or employer identification number). The mailing address, legal residence, and principal place of business, or principal office or agency, shall be stated as of the date that the petition is filed.
(2) The date of the notice of determination concerning collection action(s) under Code section 6320 and/or 6330 by the Internal Revenue Service Office of Appeals (hereinafter the “notice of determination”), and the city and State of the Office which made such determination.
(3) The amount or amounts and type of underlying tax liability, and the year or years or other periods to which the notice of determination relates.
(4) Clear and concise assignments of each and every error which the petitioner alleges to have been committed in the notice of determination. Any issue not raised in the assignments of error shall be deemed to be conceded. Each assignment of error shall be separately lettered.
(5) Clear and concise lettered statements of the facts on which the petitioner bases each assignment of error.
(6) A prayer setting forth the relief sought by the petitioner.
(7) The signature, mailing address, and telephone number of each petitioner or each petitioner’s counsel, as well as counsel’s Tax Court bar number.
(8) As an attachment, a copy of the notice of determination.
A claim for reasonable litigation or administrative costs shall not be included in the petition in a lien and levy action. For the requirements as to claims for reasonable litigation or administrative costs, see Rule 231.

I am sure most of you have seen this but look at the requirements for starting a levy or lien action. Are they doing this? Not expecting an answer to that question by the way.

I found that here

He doesn't specify who "they" are but if "they" are a reference to the US/IRS Commissioner, then he is so clueless.