Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Re {Frog Farmer}: Frog Farmer Confrontation With Criminal Impersonator!

Expand Messages
  • DMiner
    Paradox -- Your first comment is totally accurate. The second point makes a good story but is totally false. The Statutes are current laws enacted through
    Message 1 of 7 , Mar 1, 2005
      Paradox --
       
      Your first comment is totally accurate.  The second point makes a good story but is totally false.
       
      The Statutes are current laws enacted through Acts of Congress and signature by the President.  They become Code only when they are reconciled with existing Code and, where necessary, the existing Code is modified.  In other words, the existing Code is the law where it is in agreement with and not changed by the Statute, and the Statute is the law where there is disagreement with the Code.  During the "update" process, the Code is modified by any changes or new sections of the Statutes. 
       
      Some Sections of the Code are seldom if ever updated.  Specifically, where there are many and frequent changes to the Code, it is not updated.  The changes in Statutes are too frequent to allow for updating the Code.  So you and I and everyone else is subject to the Statute where it is more current than the Code.  Where there is no disagreement with the Statute, the Code is the law.
       
      Many people try to make a big deal of the fact that the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26 of the US Code) is not "positive law."  That is a total non-issue where the IRC does not disagree with the most current Statute for that section.  If there is no difference between the Statute and the Code, you and I and everyone else is subject to the Code AND the Statute (since there is no difference).  And where you want to contest the IRC, you had better be able to show that the most current Statute for that section disagrees with the Code or else you will be held accountable to the Code.  Again, because there is no difference.
       
      The concept of the Code being only a contract with certain parties is Patriot Mythology.  If you try to use that argument in court, you will lose every time.  And your loss will not be because the judiciary is crooked or uninformed.  Your loss will be because you do not understand the Constitutional process of making laws in America.
       
      Yours in freedom,
       
      Dave Miner
       
       
       


      From: paradoxmagnus@... [mailto:paradoxmagnus@...]
      Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 8:47 PM
      To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Re {Frog Farmer}: Frog Farmer Confrontation With Criminal Impersonator!

      Regarding your comments on the Code.

      1.  It is my understanding that the Statutes are Law and when the Code
      conflict the Statutes always prevail.

      2. The Code is private copyrighted law, implemented through administrative
      process and is binding on all contracting parties.  Each individual public
      employee at any level of government is a contracting party, through
      acceptance, consideration, oath and performance.

      I.E., the Statutes are for the Citizens (the Masters) and the Codes are for
      Government Employees (their Servants)

       

      ---
      Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
      Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
      Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004

    • Frog Farmer
      ... Exactly. I was speaking about California, specifically. See: http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/miscavige_suit.htm?FACTNet ... We were discussing the oath
      Message 2 of 7 , Mar 2, 2005
        On Mar 1, 2005, at 5:46 PM, <paradoxmagnus@...> wrote:

        > Regarding your comments on the Code.
        >
        > 1.  It is my understanding that the Statutes are Law and when the Code
        > conflict the Statutes always prevail.

        Exactly. I was speaking about California, specifically. See:

        http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/miscavige_suit.htm?FACTNet

        > 2. The Code is private copyrighted law, implemented through
        > administrative
        > process and is binding on all contracting parties.  Each individual
        > public
        > employee at any level of government is a contracting party, through
        > acceptance, consideration, oath and performance.

        We were discussing the oath component, which comes before performance.

        Is it okay with you if your opponent's claims depend upon an oath
        existing which does not in fact exist?

        It is okay with millions upon millions of people.

        You don't feel any pressure to fit in with those millions, do you?

        I don't.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.