FW: WHAT YOU DON’T KNOW ABOUT THE IRS WILL SEND YOU TO PRISON LIKE LEONA HELMSLY, WILLY NELSON & WESLEY SNIPES!!!!
From Luis Ewing at (253) 226-3741 or (360) 353-4846 or <rcwcodebuster@gmail.com> or <rcwcodebuster@yahoo.com> or <rcwcodebuster@aol.com> or <rcwcodebuster@hotmail.com> or <rcwcodebuster@live.com> or <rcwcodebuster@mail.com> or <selfhelplegalnetwork@yahoogroups.com> or call me on SKYPE at <luisewing>
To hear Kurt Riggin, lloyd smith, Matt from Michigan, Michael James Anthony and Luis Ewing speak, call in at . . . 1 - (347) 215-9477 . . . or just go to Google & type in . . . BLOG TALK RADIO . . . and Search for . . . “Pro-se Winners” . . . or just click on this LINK to Pro-se Winners here: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/pro-se-winners
Blog Talk Chat Board:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/flashchat/chat.aspx?HostUserURL=pro-se-winners
Pro-se Winners Chat Board: http://www.prosewinners.net/
Free Flyers: http://www.prosewinners.net/flyers.html
Pro-se Winners is now on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Pro-se-Winners/482394011791575?ref=hl
Pro-se Winners is now on Twitter:
http://twitter.com/prosewinners
Self Help Legal Network: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/selfhelplegalnetwork
Web Sites under construction: http://www.StoptheIRS.net or http://www.rcwcodebuster.com or http://www.IRSbuster.com or http://www.IRSslayer.com or http://www.luisewing.com or http://www.ultimateusers.com
GODS LAW as written in the 1599 GENEVA BIBLE at http://www.americanvision.com says:
“If my people, among whom my Name is called upon, do humble themselves, and pray and seek my presence, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear in heaven and be merciful to their sin, and will heal their land: .” 2 Chronicles 7:14.
“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast refused knowledge, I will also refuse thee that thou shall be no Priest to me: and seeing thou hast forgotten the Law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.” Hosea 4:6
“And I heard another voice from heaven say: Go out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues: . . .” Revelations 18:4
“Then Peter and the Apostles answered, and said, We ought rather to obey God than men.” Acts, 5:29
“Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners, and purge your hearts, ye double minded.” James 5:8
“No servant can serve two masters: for either he shall hate the one, and love the other: or else he shall lean to the one, and despise the other, Ye cannot serve God and riches.” Luke 16:13
“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers: for there is no power but of God: and the powers that be, are ordained of God.” Romans 13:1
“Whoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist, shall receive to themselves condemnation.” Romans 13:2
“Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the ordinances of the world, why, as though ye lived in the world, are ye burdened with traditions?” Colossians 2:20
“As, Touch not, Taste not, Handle not.” Colossians 2:21
“Which all perish with the using, and are after the commandments and doctrines of men.” Colossians 2:22
“And putting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, he even took it out of the way, and fastened it upon the cross, . . .” Colossians 2: 14.
“That we henceforth be no more children, wavering and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the deceit of men, and with crafttiness, whereby they lay in wait to deceive.” Ephesians, 4:14
“And we know, that the Law is good, if a man use it lawfully.” Timothy, 1:8
“Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, or the Prophets. I am not come to destroy them, but to fulfill them.” Mathews 5:17
“If my people, among whom my Name is called upon, do humble themselves, and pray and seek my presence, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear in heaven and be merciful to their sin, and will heal their land: .” 2 Chronicles 7:14.
“In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man – brave – hated – scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot.” Mark Twain
Those who expect to reap the blessing of liberty must undergo the fatigue of supporting it.” Thomas Paine
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin
"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
SUBJECT: SHORT STUDY LIST:
Below, you will see “some” of the statutes that I use in “some” of my FOIA’s to make the IRS provide proof that they have the necessary and required foundational documents to move against you legally!
GO TO . . . “GOOGLE” AND TYPE IN . . . “UNITED STATES CODE.”
THEN TYPE IN THE FOLLOWING TITLE 26 UNITED STATES CODE SECTIONS AND PRINT OUT EACH STATUTE AND READ THEM:
26 U.S.C. 6201
26 U.S.C. 6311
26 U.S.C. 6203
26 U.S.C. 6303
26 U.S.C. 6020
26 U.S.C. 7401
26 U.S.C. 6330
26 U.S.C. 6331
26 U.S.C. 6320
26 U.S.C. 6212
26 U.S.C. 6751 (a)
28 U.S.C. 1733 (b)
18 U.S.C. 4001
18 U.S.C. 4083
18 U.S.C. 4086
1 U.S.C. 204 (a)
1 U.S.C. 112
NOTE: ON THE TITLE 26 STATUTES, GO PULL THE EQUIVALENT SECTION(S) OF . . . “THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986.”
THAT IS JUST THE BEGINNING!!!!
THERE ARE OVER . . . 10,000.00 PAGES OF TITLE 26 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE . . . AND THERE IS OVER . . . 10,000.00 PAGES OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986 . . . AND THERE IS OVER . . . 10,000.00 PAGES OF THE NEW INTERNAL REVENUE CODE . . . AND MANY OTHER RELATED STATUTES, IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS, ACTS OF CONGRESS, OMB NUMBERS, EXPIRATION DATES, IRS POLICY STATEMENTS, FEDERAL REGISTER CITATIONS, FEDERAL COURT RULES, TAX COURT DECISIONS, TREASURY RULINGS, DISTRICT COURT RULINGS, APPEALS COURT RULINGS AND U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE LAW DECISIONS THAT THE IRS IS REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH . . . AND I USE THE FOIA DISCOVERY METHODS TO MAKE THEM PRODUCE . . . CERTIFIED COPIES OF . . . THE EVIDENCE . . . WHICH ARE THE ORIGINAL AND FOUNDATIONAL DOCUMENTS . . . THAT THEY ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE PROOF THAT THEY SERVED YOU COPIES OF EITHER BY PERSONAL SERVICE OR CERTIFIED REGISTERED RECEIPT MAIL IN THEIR POSSESSION . . . BEFORE THEY CAN LAWFULLY PLACE A LIEN, LEVY OR NOTICE OF FEDERAL TAX LIEN ON YOUR PROPERTY OR GARNISH YOUR PAYCHECKS!!!!
I do NOT want to hear you tell me that . . . “it’s all the same” . . . when you are just trying to . . . “JEW DOWN THE PRICE” . . . of what I would charge to review each additional count or year for . . . “the same statute” . . . violation!
IT’S NOT ALL THE SAME!!!!
The IRS goes in and . . . AMENDS THE STATUTES . . . every year!
The IRS goes in and . . . AMENDS THE REGULATIONS . . . every year!
The IRS goes in and . . . AMENDS THE CFR’S . . . every year!
NO WAY YOU SAY?
REALLY, YOU DON’T BELIEVE IT?
Here take a look and see what some of the annotated case law interpreting 1 U.S.C. 204 (a) has to say about the original Session Laws which are the Acts of Congress which are contained in the Statutes at Large as opposed to the “prima-facie” compilation which is the private copyrighted code sections which are not positive law contained in the UNITED STATES CODE here:
“But the legislature specifically disclaimed any intention to change the meaning of any statute. The compilers of the Code were not empowered by Congress to amend existing law, and doubtless had no thought of doing so ...” Warner v. Goltra, 293 U.S. 155, 161, 79 L. Ed. 254, 55 S. Ct. 46. ...The act before us does not purport to amend a section of an act, but only a section of a compilation entitled “Revised Code of Washington,” which is not the law. Such an act purporting to amend only a section of the prima facie compilation leaves the law unchanged. En Banc.” PAROSA v. TACOMA, 57 Wn.(2d) 409, 411, 412, 413, 415, 421 (Dec.22, 1960). See also In re Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn.(2d) 261-266 (January 17, 1963). And;
“As pointed out by Mr. Justice Thompson v. U.S., 12 Pet. 524, 625, 9 L.Ed. 1181, and referred to with approval in the case of In re Heath, 144 U.S. 92, 12 S.Ct. 615, 36 L.Ed. 358, it is permissible and not an uncommon practice for a legislative body to adopt by reference other legislative acts; but “such adoption has always been considered as referring to the law existing at the time of adoption; and no subsequent legislation has ever been supposed to affect it. And such must necessarily be the effect and operation of such adoption; no other rule would furnish any certainty as to what was the law; and would be adopting prospectively, all changes that might be made in the law.” [2] The fact that part of section 5438 of the Revised Statutes which contains the amendment of October 23, 1918, appears in the United States Code as section 80 of title 18, and that the same compilation contains sections 3490 and 3491 of the Revised Statutes as sections 231 and 232 of title 31, does not change the situation. The inclusion of these sections in the Code did not have the effect of re-enacting them. The act providing for the codification of the general and permanent laws of the United States expressly declares that the act shall not be construed as repealing or amending any law, or as enacting as new law any matter contained in the Code (see 1 U.S.C.A. p. 3).” United States v. McMurtry, 5 F.Supp. 515, at 517 (August 11, 1933). And;
“[2-4] Whether an act is amendatory of existing law is determined not by title alone, or by declaration in the new act that it purports to amend existing law. On the contrary, it is determined by an examination and comparison of its provisions with existing law. If its aim is to clarify or correct uncertainties which arose from the enforcement of the existing law, or to reach situations which were not covered by the original statute, the act is amendatory, even though in its wording it does not purport to amend the language of the prior act. United States ex rel. Palmers v. Lapp, 6 Cir., 1917, 244 F. 377, 383. “The character of the act must be determined not by the title alone nor whether it professes to be an amendment of existing laws, but by an examination and comparison of its provisions with prior laws which are left in force.” People ex rel. Larson v. Thomson, 1942, 381 Ill. 48, 44 N.E.2d 809, 900. (Emphasis added.). Whatever supplements existing legislation, in order to achieve more successfully the societal object sought to be obtained may be said to amend it. It is evident that the codifiers so considered the particular change.” Ballian Ice Cream Co. v. Arden Farms Co., 94 F.Supp. 796, at 798 to 799 (December 26, 1950). And;
“[1] The United States Code was not enacted as a statute, nor can it be construed as a statute, nor can it be construed as such. It is only a prima facie statement of the statute law. The statutes collected in it did not change their meaning nor acquire any new force by their inclusion. If construction is necessary, recourse must be had to the original statutes themselves. Section 2(a) of the Act of June 30, 1926, 44 Stats. Part 1, page1.” Murrell v. Western Union Tel. Co., 160 F.2d 787, at 788 (April 11, 1947). And;
“The Code establishes prima facie what the laws of the United States are. It is so provided in section 204, title 1, of the Code. Section 112, title 1, of the Code provides, however, that the United States Statutes at Large, “shall be legal, evidence of laws * * * in all the courts of the United States * * *.” The Supreme Court stated the rule, in cases of apparent inconsistency between the language of the statute and of the Code, as follows, in Stephans v. United States, 319 U.S. 423, at page 426, 63 S.Ct. 1135, at page 1137, 87 L.Ed. 1490:
“* * * The fact that the words of 18 U.S.C. § 681 have lingered on in the successive editions of the United States Code is immaterial. By 1 U.S.C. § 54 (a), 1 U.S.C.A. § 54(a) the Code establishes ‘prima facie’ the laws of the United States. But the meaning of ‘prima facie’ is that the Code cannot prevail over the Statutes at Large when the two are inconsistent.”
To the extent that provisions of the Code, cited to us by defendant, are inconsistent with the Statutes at Large, the latter will prevail. To obviate confusion, we have cited the appropriate sections of the Statutes at Large, rather than sections of the Code. However, it is relevant to note that the provisions of the Code which are pertinent to our decision also support our opinion.” Best Foods v. United States, 147 F.Supp. 749, at 752 to 753 (June 26, 1956). And;
“The Act authorizing the preparation and publication of this Code declares that the Code shall “establish prima facie the laws” then in force. Act of may 29, 1928, c 910 § 4, 45 Stat. 1007, as amended by the Act of March 2, 1929, c. 586, § 3, 45 Stat. 1541. See 1 U.S.C. § 204 (b). 1951).” Fisher v. Capital Transit Company, 246 F.2d 666, at 668 (May 16, 1957). And;
\
“[5] We do not know what source of United States laws is used in the Commissioner’s office but we would be surprised if they were not the same as that commonly used by a judge, namely, United States Code or United States Code Annotated. The mistake, therefore, is perfectly natural. But no one denies that the official source to find United States laws is the Statutes at Large and that the Code is only prima facie evidence of such laws. 1 U.S.C. 204 (a) (1952). See Nashville Milk Co. v. Carnation Co., 7 Cir., 1956, 238 F.2d 86, 89, affirmed 1958, 355 U.S. 373, 379, 380, 78 S.Ct. 352, 2 L.Ed.2d 340; Vance Safeway Stores, Inc., 10 Cir. 1956, 239 F.2d 144, 145, reversed on other grounds, 1958, 355 U.S. 389, 78 S.Ct. 358, 2 L.Ed.2d 350. A check of the United Code of 1946 and the Statutes at Large shows the statement of the taxpayer to be correct on this matter. Now the regulation which came in 1948 was enacted following the 1946 edition. Again, we cannot be sure whether the Commissioner’s lawyer who drew the regulation had the Statutes at Large or the Code before him. But if he works as the rest of us do, he had the Code. If he had the Code he undoubtedly though that thought that last paragraph was still the law and there was no reason why he should not think so. [6] The Government meets the taxpayer’s arguments by ignoring it. But we cannot. It seems quite clear to us that the regulation when looked at in the light of the statute, as the statute stands after the 1942 amendment, does as the taxpayer says, add an additional requirement which Congress did not put there. The regulation is, therefore necessarily invalid. The judgment of the district court will be reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” Royer’s Inc. v. United States, 265 F.2d 615, 618 to 619 (April 7, 1959). And;
“[1] It is well settled that “the Code cannot prevail over the Statutes at Large, when the two are inconsistent.” Stephan v. United States, 319 U.S. 423, 63 S.Ct. 1135, 1137, 80 L.Ed. 1490; Royer’s Inc. v. United States, 3 Cir., 265 F.2d 615. The provisions of the Code are merely prima facie evidence of the law. 1 U.S.C. § 204 (a).” American Export Lines Inc. v. United States, 290 F.2d 925, at 929 (July 19, 1961). And;
“. . . n. 4. This Act as codified, appears at 15 U.S.C. 32. The codification, which has not been enacted into positive law, eliminates the appropriation provision of the Act which by its terms was of no effect after June 30, 1904. The codification makes no other change. 61 Stat. 638, 1 U.S.C. 204 (a), declares that the United States Code establishes “prima facie the laws of the United States, general and permanent in their nature . . . 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 . . .” This Court, in construing that statute has said that “the very meaning of ‘prima facie’ is that the Code cannot prevail over the Statutes at Large when the two are inconsistent.” Stephan v. United States, 319 U.S. 423, 426. Even where Congress has enacted a codification into positive, Court has said that the . . . “change of arrangement, which placed portions of what was originally a single section in two separated sections cannot be regarded as altering the scope and purpose of the enactment. For it will not be inferred that Congress, in revising and consolidating the laws, intended to change their effect unless such intention is clearly expressed.” Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Corp., 353 U.S. 222, 227, quoting Anderson v. Pacific Coast S.S. Co., 225 U.S. 187, 198-199. Certainly where, as here, the “change of arrangement” was made by a codifier without the approval by Congress, it should be given no weight. “If construction [of a section of the United States Code which has not been enacted into positive law] is necessary, recourse must be had to the original statutes themselves.” Murrell v. Western Union Tel. Co., 160 F.2d 787, 788.” United States v. Welden, 377 U.S. 95, at 98-99 (April 20, 1964). And;
“The Code is only prima facie evidence of the laws of the United States. 1 U.S.C. § 204 (a). Where an inconsistency between the United States Code and the Statutes at Large appears, the Statutes at Large prevail over the Code. Stephan v. United States, 319 U.S. 423, 426, 63 S.Ct. 1135, 87 L.Ed. 1490 (1943).” Peart v. Motor Vessell Bering Explorer, 373 F.Supp. 927, at 928 (April 12, 1974). And;
“[11] Unless Congress affirmatively enacts a title of the United States Code into law, that title is only “prima facie” evidence of the law, see 1 U.S.C. § 204 (a) (1982); “the very meaning of ‘prima facie’ is that the Code cannot prevail over the Statutes at Large when the two are inconsistent.” Stephan v. United States, 319 U.S. 423, 426, 63 S.Ct. 1135, 1136, 87 L.Ed. 1490 (1943) (per curiam); see American Bank & Trust Co. v. Dallas County, ____ U.S. ___, 103 S.Ct. 3369, 3375 n. 8, 77 L.Ed.2d 1072 (1983); United States v. Weldon, 377 U.S. 95, 98-99, n. 4, 84 S.Ct. 1082, 1085 n. 4 (1964).” Preston v. Heckler, 734 F.2d 1359, 1367 (June 7, 1984).
“Title 1, United States Code. –The matters 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 . . . 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. . . . Id. (Emphasis in original). If construction of a section of the United States Code which has not been enacted into positive law is necessary, recourse must be had to the original statutes themselves. United States v. Welden, 377 U.S. 95, 84 S.Ct. 1082, 12 L.Ed.2d 152 (1964). Under § 204, the United States Code cannot prevail over the statutes at large if the two are inconsistent. Stephans v. United States, 319 U.S. 423, 63 S.Ct. 1135, 87 L.Ed. 1490 (1943).” United States v. Wodtke, 627 F.Supp. 1034, at 1040-1041 (December 26, 1985). And;
“Though the appearance of a provision in the current edition of the United States Code is “prima facie” evidence that the provision has the force of law, 1 U.S.C. § 204(a), it is the Statutes at Large that provides the “legal evidence of laws, “ § 112, and despite its omission from the Code section 92 remains on the books if the Statutes at Large so dictates. When Congress has enacted a title of the Code as positive law (as it has done, for instance, with Title 11, the Bankruptcy Code, see § 101, 92 Stat. 2549), the text of the Code provides “legal evidence of the laws.” 1 U.S.C. § 204(a). But Congress has not enacted as positive law Title 12, in which section 92 for a time appeared. Cf. United States v. Weldon, 377 U.S. 95, 98, n. 4 (1964); Stephan v. United States, 319 U.S. 423, 426 (1943) (per curiam).” UNITED STATES NATIONAL BANK OF OREGON v. INDEPENDENT INSURANCE AGENTS OF AMERICA, INC. ET AL., 508 U.S. 439, 448 (June 7, 1993). And;
“The district court apparently believed that public laws have less “weight” as laws than laws which have been codified. The reverse is true: “the Code cannot prevail over the Statutes at Large when the two are inconsistent.” United States v. Weldon, 377 U.S. 95, 98 n. 4, 84 S.Ct. 1082, 1085 n. 4, 12 L.Ed.2d 152 (1964).” Schwier v. Cox, 340 F.3d 1285, 1288 (April 11, 2003). And;
“Rather, plaintiff simply assumed that § 7(b) controls while the City focused on the codified statute ratther than upon the public law. That being the case, we start with basic principles. First, it is the Statutes at large that “shall be legal evidence of laws.” 1 U.S.C. § 112. By contrast, the United States Code shall “establish prima facie the laws of the United States.” 1 U.S.C. § 204(a). Thus, even if a portion of Pub.L. 96-579, which appears in the Statutes at Large at 80 Stat. 1896, were omitted from the United States Code, it would retain the force of law. United States Nat. Bank of Oregon v. Indep. Ins. Agents of America, Inc., 508 U.S. 439, 448, 113 S.Ct. 2173, 124 L.Ed.2d 402 (1993); see generally Abner J. Mikva & Eric Lane, Legislative Process, 89-92 (Aspen Law & Business 2nd ed (2002). However, that general principle gives way when a title of the United States Code has been enacted into positive law by Congress; when that happens, “the text thereof shall be legal of the laws therein contained.” 1 U.S.C. § 204(a); National Bank of Oregon, 508 U.S. at 448 n. 3, 113 S.Ct. 2173. Congress enacted Title 5 as positive law in 1966. Pub.L. 89-554, 80 Stat. 378. Given that Title 5 has the force of positive law, the viability of § 7(b) is premised upon whether it was codified. It was albeit as a note to 5 U.S.C. § 552a. See 5 U.S.C. § 552a. (Congressional Findings and Statement of Purpose). We are therefore confronted by two provisions of the Privacy Act that contradict one another to some degree: the statutory definition, which unambiguously contemplates that the Privacy Act applies exclusively to federal agencies, and § 7(b), which by its terms includes state and local agencies within its ambit. [3] When faced with statutory sections that are inherently inconsistent, our first duty is to reconcile the competing provisions so that they can both remain in effect. See Daniel v. Cantrell, 375 F.3d 377, 383 (6th Cir.2004); cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 874, ____ L.Ed.2d _____ (Jan. 10, 2004) (No. 04-6822); Anderson v. Yungkau, 153 F.2d 685, 688 (6th Cir. 1946) (dissent); see generally Singer, Norman J. Statutes and Statutory Construction § 28:12 (West Group 6th ed. 2002).” Scmitt v. City of Detroit, 395 F.3d 327 (Jan. 14, 2005). And;
AND SEE WHAT THE CURRENT . . . 26 U.S.C. 7806 - CONSTRUCTION OF TITLE . . . SAYS:
“26 USC § 7806 - Construction of title
(a) Cross references
The cross references in this title to other portions of the title, or other provisions of law, where the word “see” is used, are made only for convenience, and shall be given no legal effect.
(b) Arrangement and classification
No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title, nor shall any table of contents, table of cross references, or similar outline, analysis, or descriptive matter relating to the contents of this title be given any legal effect. The preceding sentence also applies to the sidenotes and ancillary tables contained in the various prints of this Act before its enactment into law.”
Well yeah, if Title 1 U.S.C. 204 (a) shows us that Title 26 has NEVER been passed into positive law, it just makes sense that 26 U.S.C. 7806 would say . . . No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title, nor shall any table of contents, table of cross references, or similar outline, analysis, or descriptive matter relating to the contents of this title be given any legal effect.”
ARE YOUR EYES GLAZING OVER YET????
IS THIS TOO MUCH FOR YOU TO READ????
IF IT IS . . . THEN GIVE IT UP . . . YOU ARE NEVER GOING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO BEAT THE TAX MAN . . . AND . . . DO IT YOURSELF . . . BY JOINING A FEW YAHOO GROUPS AND TALK SHOES ON THE WEEKENDS !!!!
YOU HAVE NO CHOICE . . . PAY THE TAX MAN . . . OR . . . HIRE AN ATTORNEY . . . AND SEE WHERE THAT GETS YOU . . . OR . . . HIRE ME TO HELP YOU . . . THOSE ARE REALISTICALLY . . . YOUR ONLY OPTIONS PERIOD!!!!
DID YOU KNOW THAT THEY HAVE CHANGED THE NAMES OF WASHINGTON STATE STATUTES AND THE REFERENCING CODE SECTIONS AT LEAST FIVE (5) TIMES IN WASHINGTON????
IN WASHINGTON WE WENT FROM:
1.) THE TERRITORIAL CODE OF 1881
2.) PIERCE’S PERPETUAL CODE
3.) HILLS CODE
4.) BALLENGER’S CODE
5.) REMINGTON REVISED STATUTES
6.) THE REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON
DID YOU KNOW THAT THEY HAVE CHANGED THE NAME OF THE STATE STATUTE BOOKS AND THE REFERENCING CODE SECTIONS AT LEAST 2 OR 3 TIMES IN EVERY OTHER STATE AS WELL????
DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT ALL CURRENT STATE STATUTES ARE THE LAW????
See Harland v. Territory, 3 Wash. T. 131 (1887), which states in part:
“An act to amend section 3050 of chapter 380 of the Code of Washington.”
We have a book which is marked on the fly-leaf, “The Code of Washington.” I have examined it, and find that upon its face does not purport to contain any authenticated act of the legislative assembly of the territory of Washington. It purports to have been edited and compiled by a private party. It contains no titles to acts, no enacting clauses, no signature of president of council, speaker of the house, or governor. It is not certified by the secretary to be or contain a true copy of any legislative act. The chapters, divisions, and sections all purport to be the act of a private party. His sections run up to 3327, and in the book is an unauthenticated provision that a certain private party shall publish parts of a certain class of laws which he shall deem to be general, and leave out certain parts of all acts, and leave out entirely others. He certifies that he has examined all the laws embraced in the volume (the Code), etc., and put redundant matter in parentheses, and matters ommitted from enrolled laws but supplied by him are enclosed in brackets. Now, it is clear that this book contains no act passed by the legislative assembly, and cannot be known officially what it does or does not contain. We suppose that it is this private book that the act of 1883 purports to amend. Acts of a legislature may amend other acts of its own. An act cannot amend the statutes of the United States or of another state, or the works of a private author. Such an attempt is simply void, and beyond the legislative power. The organic law of the territory provides that “every act of the legislature shall contain but one object, and that shall be expressed in its title.” ...The act is then void because it has no title expressing its object.” Harland v. Territory of Washington, 3 Wash. T. 131 (1887).
And see also State v. Halbert, 14 Wash. 307, 310, 314 (March 1896), which states in part:
“By section 2 of article 27 of the constitution, it was provided that all laws then in force in the Territory of Washington, which were not repugnant to the constitution, should remain in force until they should expire by their own limitation, or be repealed by the legislature. If, therefore, the act in question was not in force at the time of the adoption of the state constitution, it necessarily follows that it never became the law of this state, and that the section which it attempted to amend is still the law. Was it then in force? The highest judicial tribunal of the territory said it was not, and for this reason, no doubt, it was omitted from the compilation of “existing laws;” and, under the circumstances, we do not think we ought to overrule its decisions.” State v. Halbert, 14 Wash. 307, 310, 314 (March 1896).
And see also Spokane, P. & S. R. Co. v. Franklin County, 106 Wash. 2126, 31 (March 4, 1919), which states in part:
“STATUTES (75)–CODES–CONSTRUCTION. A compiler’s codification of several independent acts, without official sanction, does not control construction, and any superceded matter must be disregarded and omitted matter searched out and given effect. ...the compiler’s idea of what now remains as law of the many enactments of the legislature. But the compilation has no official sanction in the sense that it controls the construction the court must put upon the several acts. If it includes matter superseded, the matter must be rejected, and if there are matters not superseded and not contained therein, they must be searched out and given effect.” Spokane, P. & S. R. CO. v. Franklin County, 106 Wash. 212 (March 4. 1919). And;
And see also State ex rel. v. Superior Court, 28 Wash. at 324 (1902), which states in part:
“It is very properly suggested by counsel that Judge Ballinger has prepared a Code which is of great convenience to the bench and bar of the state, but that Code cannot be said to be clothed with authority equal to that of the Code of 1881. The later is purely a legislative product, while the former is a private compilation, which has simply received the approval of the legislature as an official compilation of existing statutes, but of no greater authority than all other existing official compilations of session laws of the state. See Session Laws 1899, P.109, section 1 Ballinger’s Code was not enacted by the legislature, as was the Code of 1881, but was approved as a compilation of laws for the purpose of reference, as provided in section 2 of the act of 1899, above cited. ...such mere reference to the sections of a private compilation, allthough ably and carefully prepared, and even recognized by the legislature as an official compilation, cannot take the place of the constitutional requirement that the title of an act shall contain some statement indicating the actual thing of which the law treats. In State v. Halbert, 14 Wash. 306 (44 Pac. 538), it was held that an act of 1885-86, attempting to amend a section of the Code of 1881 by mere reference to its number in the title of the amending act, was void.” State ex rel. v. Superior Court, 28 Wash. at 324 (1902). And;
See also In re Nolan, 21 Wash. 395, 396,398 (July 1899), which states in part:
“This act was entitled, “An act to amend Section 812 of the Code of Washington Territory”; and this court in the cases of State v. Halbert, 14 Wash. 306 (44 Pac. 538), and State v. Dillon, 14 Wash. 703 (46 Pac. 1119), it held the amendatory act void, for the reason that its object was not expressed in its title.” In re Nolan, 21 Wash. 395, 396,398 (July 1899). And;
See also Naccarato v. Sullivan, 46 Wn.(2d) 67, 74,77 (January 6, 1955) which states in part:
“We stated the tests to be applied in determining whether an act is complete:
“They are: Can a person of ordinary intelligence mistake its meaning? Can we know what the legislature intended, without referring to any other act or statute?” Naccarato v. Sullivan, 46 Wn.(2d) 67, 74,77 (January 6, 1955).
See also Parosa v. Tacoma, 57 Wn.(2d) 409, 411, 412, 413, 415, 421 (Dec.22, 1960), which reads:
“The original code committee, created by Laws of 1941 chapter 149, p. 418, consisted of the State Law Librarian, the law librarian of the University of Washington, and the executive secretary of the judicial council. By section 2 of that , the committee was directed to adopt a complete re-compilation of the statute law of the state, but was not endowed with power to change the law. Two mimeographed volumes, containing the work product of the committee’s employed staff, were deposited in the office of the secretary of state, but the text thereof was never presented to the legislature. The committee never approved it. One member alone recommended the adoption of the compilation as a prima facia code. A majority of the committee, in a report to the legislature dated January 13, 1949 strongly opposed adoption even as a prima facia code primarily because of the failure of its employed staff to observe its admonition not to tinker with the meaning of the statutes. Nevertheless, the two volumes then resting in the offices of the secretary of state were adopted by reference only as a prima facie compilation of the state’s statute law. Laws of 1950, Ex Ses., chapter 16, p.33. But the legislature specifically disclaimed any intention to change the meaning of any statute. The compilers of the Code were not empowered by Congress to amend existing law, and doubtless had no thought of doing so ...” Warner v. Goltra, 293 U.S. 155, 161, 79 L. Ed. 254, 55 S. Ct. 46. The text of section 2 of the act (Laws of 1950, Ex. Ses., chapter 16, p.33) is as follows: “The contents of said code shall establish prima facie the laws of this state of a general and permanent nature in effect on January 1, 1949, but nothing herein shall be construed as changing the meaning of any such laws. In case of any omissions or any inconsistency between any of the provisions of said code and the laws existing immediately preceding this enactment, the previously existing laws shall control.” Such is but a statement of the law relative to the standing of a compilation of statutes. In the event of a discrepancy between the law enacted by the legislature and a compilation, the legislative acts control.” Parosa v. Tacoma, 57 Wn.(2d) 409, 411, 412, 413, 415, 421 (Dec.22, 1960). See also In re Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn.(2d) 261-266 (January 17, 1963); And;
The rule was stated by this court in Spokane, Portland & Seattle R.Co. v. Franklin County, 106 Wash. 21, 179 Pac. 113 (March 4, 1919), as follows:
“...But the compilation has no official sanction in the sense that it controls the construction the court must put upon the several acts. If it includes matter superseded, the matter must be rejected, and if there are matters not superseded and not contained therein, they must be searched out and given effect. It is believed by the undersigned Committee members that the code, if it is passed in its present form, will lead to much confusion and mistake, and will vastly increase the amount of work involved in the examination of any legal problem, because the changes in language are so numerous that no section in the new code can be accepted as correctly stating the law as enacted. ...In this respect, the 1951 legislature was following its own unconstitutional device for amending a section of an act in disregard of the specific constitutional mandate. The act before us does not purport to amend a section of an act, but only a section of a compilation entitled “Revised Code of Washington,” which is not the law. Such an act purporting to amend only a section of the prima facie compilation leaves the law unchanged. En Banc.” Spokane, Portland & Seattle R.Co. v. Franklin County, 106 Wash. 21, 179 Pac. 113 (March 4, 1919). And;
“. . . the controlling statute which was a territorial enactment and antedates the constitution itself. Territorial laws have a specific constitutional sanction and approval which subsequent state statutes do not have. Art. XXVII, section 2, of the state constitution provides: “All laws now in force in the Territory of Washington, which are not repugnant to this Constitution, shall remain in force until they expire by their own limitation, or are altered or repealed by the legislature: Provided, That this section shall not be construed as to validate any act of the legislature of Washington Territory granting shore or tide lands to any person, company or any municipal or private corporation.” For a territorial statute to be invalid upon the ground that it is “repugnant to this Constitution,” it is necessary that there be some provision of the constitution which can be said to conflict with it. Thus, as an example, the territorial act providing for the extra judicial settlement of claims arising out of the relocation of roads became invalid by necessary implication in the light of Art. 1, section 16, of the constitution which vested eminent domain proceedings exclusively in the courts. State statutes are continuously subject to scrutiny as to the propriety of their titles or the number of their subjects and are invalidated when the courts are not satisfied with them in this regard. Not so territorial acts. They are validated by the constitution itself. Thus, the territorial legislative technique of enactment is put beyond the reach of the court upon such grounds. Our constitutional forefathers were aware of the contempt statutes. They put no provision in the constitution “repugnant” to them. Under the validating provision in the constitution, the act of adopting it constituted a formal validation of the territorial acts in question. I think the courts are neither above the constitution nor the constitutionally validated territorial contempt statutes.” State v. Estill, 55 Wn.2d 576, 582 [Nos. 33729, 33730. En Banc. February 4, 1960.] And;
“This then existing qualification was recognized by the Washington Constitution upon its adoption in 1889 via art. XXVII, section 2, which recognized and retained all territorial laws then in effect. See Wash. CONST. art. XXVII, section 2; In re Bartz, 47 Wn.2d 161, 167, 287 P.2d 119 (1955); State v. Estill, 55 Wn.2d 576, 582, 349 P.2d 210, 89 A.L.R.3D 1251 (1960) (Mallery, J., concurring) (noting the provisions of WASH. CONST. art. XXVII, section 2, and stating: “Territorial laws have a specific constitutional sanction and approval which subsequent state statutes do not have.”).” Gerberding v. Munro, 134 Wn.2d 188, 208, 209 949 P.2d 1366 [No. 65059-4. En Banc.] (January 8, 1998). And;
It is undisputed that the current Washington State Supreme Court has twice recognized the Validity and Supremacy of the 1878 Walla Walla Constitution upon which the Territorial Code of 1881 was enacted in pursuance to, by specifically stating that:
“Territorial laws have a specific constitutional sanction and approval which subsequent state statutes do not have.” State v. Estill, 55 Wn.2d 576, 582 [Nos. 33729, 33730. En Banc. February 4, 1960.] and Gerberding v. Munro, 134 Wn.2d 188, 208, 209 949 P.2d 1366 [No. 65059-4. En Banc.] (January 8, 1998). And;
Two times, the Washington State Supreme Court has also made it clear that all subsequent state statutes specifically referring to the current Revised Code of Washington do NOT have a specific constitutional sanction or approval, because they already knew the Volume 0 Revised Code of Washington was a fraud on the people.
Because the Territorial Code of 1881 was based upon the 1878 Walla Walla Constitution and a “legitimate legislature” in a three (3) branch government system that NO longer exists, and due to the fact the the STATE OF WASHINGTON government is made of a two (2) branch government that now exist, it can never be changed for the reasons stated in Parosa v. Tacoma, supra, that: “...no section in the new code can be accepted as correctly stating the law as enacted.”
DO YOU REALLY THINK YOU KNOW . . . WHAT THE LAW IS . . . OR ISN’T TODAY IN 2012????
* * *
NOTE OF MAJOR CHANGE IN THE TAX LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES:
(The IRC of 1986 was changed in 2005 to 2006 to include by Sections) (Prior to 2005, the IRC Code of 1986 was divided into Chapters and Sub-Chapters only.).
* * *
See Title 1 U.S.C. 204
“Department of International Chapter
1 USCS § 204N 2
Chapt. 3 Codes & Supplements 1 USCS 204 note 3
The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was enacted in the form of a separate code by Act Aug. 16, 1954 c 736, 68A Stat. 1, The sections of Title 26 are identical to the Chapters and sub chapters of the Internal Revenue Code.”
Then later, in 2005 to 2006, they moved the above statement from Title 1 U.S.C. 204 at GENERAL PROVISIONS Ch. 3 CODES AND SUPPLEMENTS at page 74, in the current law book that is on the books shelves today in 2012 to show the following changes:
“TITLE 26, INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was enacted in the form of a separate code by Act August 16, 1954, c. 736, 68A Stat. 1, Pub.L. 99-514, § 2(a), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2095, provided that the Internal Revenue Title enacted Aug. 16, 1954, as heretofore, hereby, or hereafter amended, may be cited as the “Internal Revenue Code of 1986". The sections of Title 26, United States Code, are identical to the sections of the Internal Revenue Code.”
There you have it, Title 1 of the United States Code at section 204 clearly stated that . . . “The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was enacted in the form of . . . “A SEPARATE CODE” . . . by Act August 16, 1954 C. 736, 68A Stat 1, Pub.L. 99-514, § 2(a), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2095.
Title 1 of the United States Code at section 204 clearly stated that the sections of Title 26 are identical to the Chapters and subchapters of the Internal Revenue Code.
Prior to 2005, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 . . . used to have . . . CHAPTERS . . . and . . . SUB-CHAPTERS . . . and . . . CODE SECTIONS.
Title 26 of the United States Code . . . did NOT have . . . CHAPTERS . . . and . . . SUB-CHAPTERS!
Title 26 of the . . . United States Code . . . only had . . . SECTIONS . . . and . . . SUBSECTIONS.
NOW WHEN YOU READ . . . TITLE 26 . . . OF . . .THE UNITED STATES CODE . . . AND . . . THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986 . . . AND THE NEW SUBSEQUENT INTERNAL REVENUE CODES, THEY ARE ALL DESIGNATED BY SECTIONS AND SUBSECTIONS!
THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODES ARE NO LONGER MARKED BY CHAPTERS AND SUB-CHAPTERS!
TITLE 26 . . . OF . . .THE UNITED STATES CODE . . . AND . . . THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE . . . NOW READ THE SAME WHEN YOU READ THEM SO THAT YOU CAN NO LONGER TELL THE DIFFERENCES!
NOW IF YOU GO TO THE LAW LIBRARY TO TRY TO FIND THOSE STATEMENTS, THEY HAVE BEEN . . . “OMITTED” . . . FROM THE POCKET PART OF TITLE 1, SECTION 204, THOSE STATEMENTS, HAVE . . . DISAPPEARED . . . AND THAT OMISSION INDICATES THAT THE MAY NOT REPUBLISH THE REFERENCES TO . . . THE TWO SEPARATE . . . BUT IDENTICAL CODES . . . IN THE NEXT PUBLICATION!!!!
THE LAZY PEOPLE WHO ARE LOOKING FOR THE EASY WAY OUT WILL SAY . . . “YOU CAN’T THE PUBLIC THIS, THEY WILL THINK YOU ARE A CRAZY PERSON.”
OKAY, MY ANSWER TO THOSE PEOPLE IS . . . “OKAY, YOU KEEP PAYING TAXES LIKE THE GOOD LITTLE SHEEP THAT YOU ARE.”
THESE LAZY PEOPLE WHO ARE LOOKING FOR THE EASY WAY OUT ARE TELLING YOU THE ANSWER IS TO . . . DONATE TO THEIR WEB SITE . . . SO THAT THEY CAN GO . . . TAKE A VACATION IN WASHINGTON D.C. . . . TO PETITION CONGRESS . . . BLAH, BLAH, BLAH . . . WHERE HAVEN’T I HEARD THAT BEFORE . . . EVERY OTHER PATRIOT GROUP IN THE COUNTRY . . . HAS SAID THE SAME THING . . . FOR THE LAST TWENTY (20) TO TWENTY FIVE (25) YEARS OR MORE . . . AND WHAT HAVE THEY ACCOMPLISHED?????
ANSWER: NOTHING!!!!
EVERY YEAR, NEW GARBAGE TRUCKS SHOW UP AT THE LOADING DOCK AT THE LAW LIBRARIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY TO PICK UP ALL THE OLD LAW BOOKS SO THAT THEY CAN MAKE ROOM FOR THE NEW LAW BOOKS THAT HAVE OMITTED ALL REFERENCES TO THE PRIOR LAW SO THAT YOU CANNOT DEFEND YOURSELF IN COURT!!!!
YES, THEY ARE HIDING THE LAW!!!!
Title 26 of the . . . “United States Code” . . . and the . . . “Internal Revenue Code” . . . read as . . . “identical laws.”
But they are NOT . . . “identical laws.”
1 is law and the other is NOT the law!
1 is an Act of Congress and the other is NOT an Act of Congress!
You can go to prison for violating 1 of these 2 so called . . . “identical law’s” . . . but NOT the other!
See 18 U.S.C. 4001
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/4001
See 18 U.S.C. 4083
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/4083
See 18 U.S.C. 4086
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/4086
See Title 42 sections 1981 and 1982 which says that citizens of the United States have . . . “same and like rights” . . . as white citizens thereof.
But . . . “same and like rights” . . . do NOT mean . . . “identical rights.”
This has nothing to with so called “white supremacy,” I am not white, I am just telling you what the law books say!
Title 1 section 204 says there are two codes that have identical wording. – (Note: They have changed the wording of this section over the years because they are trying to hide the fact that these are 2 different codes or statutes.)
Title 1 section 204 is now the only place that tells you which code or statute was passed into positive law by Congress.
TITLE 1 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE ANNOTATED AT SECTION 204 WHICH IS AN ACT OF CONGRESS WHICH HAS BEEN ENACTED INTO POSITIVE LAW . . . clearly shows at pages 73 to 74 all the following titles of the United States Code which have been enacted into positive law by the following Acts of Congress and reads:
“UNITED STATES CODE TITLES AS POSITIVE LAW
The following titles of the United States Code have been enacted into positive law by the acts enumerated below:
Title 1, General Provisions–Act July 30, 1947, c. 388, § 1, 61 Stat. 633.
Title 3, The President–Act June 25, 1948, c. 644, § 1, 62 Stat. 672.
Title 4, Flag and Seal, Seat of Government, and the States–Act July 30, 1947, c 389, § 1, 61 Stat. 641.
Title 5, Government Organizations and Employees–Pub.L. 89-554, Sept. 6, 1966, § 1, 80 Stat. 378.
Title 6, Surety Bonds–Act July 30, 1947, c 390, 390, § 1, 61 Stat 646, as amended June 6, 1972, Pub.L. 92-310, Title II, § 203 (4), 86 Stat. 202, and repealed Sept. 13, 1982, Pub.L. 97-258, § 5(b), 96 Stat. 1068. See, now, Title 31, Money and Finance.
Title 9, Arbitration–Act July 30, 1947, c. 392, § 1, 61 Stat. 669.
Title 10, Armed Forces–Act Aug. 10, 1956, c. 1041, § 1, 70A Stat. 1.
Title 11, Bankruptcy–Pub.L. 95-598, Title 1, § 101, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2549.
Title 13, Census–Act Aug. 31, 1954, c. 1158, 68 Stat. 1012.
Title 14, Coast Guard–Act. Aug. 4, 1949, c. 393, § 1, 63 Stat. 495.
Title 17, Copyrights–Act July 30, 1947, c. 391, § 1, 61 Stat. 652, as amended in its entirety by Pub.L. 94-533, Title I, § 101m, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2541.
Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure–Act June 25, 1948, c. 645, § 1, 62 Stat. 683.
Title 23, Highways–Pub.L. 85-767, § 1, Aug. 27, 1958, 72 Stat. 885.
Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial procedure–Act June 25, 1948, c. 646, § 1, 62 Stat. 869.
Title 31, Money and Finance–Pub.L. 97-258, § 1, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 877.
Title 32, National Guard–Act Aug. 10, 1956, c. 1041, § 2, 70A Stat. 596.
Title 35, Patents–Act July 19, 1952, c. 950, § 1, 66 Stat. 792.
Title 36, Patriotic and National Observances, Ceremonies, and Organizations–Pub.L. 105-225, § 1, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1253.
Title 37, Pay and Allowances of the Uniformed Services–Pub.L. 87-649, § 1, Sept. 7, 1962, 76 Stat. 451.
Title 38, Veterans’s Benefits–Pub.L. 85-857, § 1, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1105.
Title 39, Postal Service–Pub.L. 86-682, § 1, Sept. 2, 1960, 74 Stat. 578, as revised Pub.L. 91-375, § 2, Aug. 12, 1970, 84 Stat. 719.
Title 40. Public Buildings, Property, and Works–Pub.L. 107-217, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1062.
Title 44, Public Printing and Documents–Pub.L. 90-620, § 1, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1238.
Title 46, Shipping–Pub.L. 98-89, § 1, Aug. 26, 1983, 97 Stat. 500; Pub.L. 99-509, Title V, Subtitle B, § 5101, Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1913; Pub.L. 100-710, Title I, § 102, Nov. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 4739.
Title 49, Transportation–Pub.L. 95-473, § 1, Oct. 17, 1978, 92 Stat. 1337; Pub.L. 97-449, § 1, Jan. 12, 1983, 96 Stat. 2413; Pub.L. 103-272, § 1, July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 745.”
Title 1 U.S.C. § 204 clearly shows that . . . “Title 5 . . . was passed into positive law by Congress and 1 U.S.C. § 204, also clearly shows that . . . TITLE 24 . . . and . . . TITLE 25 . . . and . . . TITLE 26 . . . and . . . TITLE 27 . . . WERE NOT PASSED INTO POSITIVE LAW BY CONGRESS.
WAIT A MINUTE, HOLD ON, WHERE IS THE HOMESTEAD LAWS????
SOMEONE TOLD ME THAT ALL THE HOMESTEAD LAWS WERE REPEALED????
THE LAZY . . . “INTERNET RESEARCHERS” . . . WHO HAVE NEVER SEEN THE INSIDE OF A LAW LIBRARY . . . WILL TELL YOU THAT LUIS EWING IS WRONG . . . THE HOMESTEAD LAWS HAVE BEEN REPEALED!!!!
WHO DO YOU BELIEVE . . . THE LAZY F UCKS . . .WHO LOSE ALL THEIR CASES BECAUSE THEY ARE TOO LAZY AND TOO CHEAP TO SPEND ANY MONEY ON GAS AND PARKING AND PHOTO-COPIES WHO WILL TELL YOU THAT . . . “EVERYTHING’S ON THE INTERNET” . . . OR . . . LUIS EWING WHO WINS MOST OF HIS CASES????
GOOGLE . . . up the following United States Code Sections:
1.) 43 U.S.C. 161
2.) 43 U.S.C. 302
IT ONLY SAID THAT IT REPEALED . . . THE UNITED STATES CODE SECTION!!!!
IT DOES NOT SAY THAT IT REPEALED . . . THE ACTS OF CONGRESS!!!!!
IT DOES NOT SAY THAT IT REPEALED . . . THE STATUTES AT LARGE!!!!
YES, THAT’S RIGHT, THIS PHONY PRETEND GOVERNMENT IS . . . HIDING THE LAWS FROM US!!!!
NO, IT CAN’T BE TRUE!!!!
YES, OUR PHONY PRETEND GOVERNMENT HAS LIED TO US AGAIN!!!!
OH BUT YOU CAN’T TELL THE PUBLIC THIS, THEY WILL THINK YOU ARE A CRAZY PERSON!!!!
“And we know, that the Law is good, if a man use it lawfully.” Timothy, 1:8
“Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, or the Prophets. I am not come to destroy them, but to fulfill them.” Mathews 5:17.
Title 26 and Title 27 of the . . . “United States Code” . . . have NOT been passed into positive law by Congress!
SO HOW DO YOU KNOW WHICH CODE OR STATUTE YOU ARE DEALING WITH????
ASK FOR THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATION FOR THE STATUTE OR CODE SECTION CALLED . . . THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE (IRC) OF 1986!
ASK FOR THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATION FOR THE STATUTE OR CODE SECTION CALLED . . . TITLE 26 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE!
Title is 26 of the . . . “United States Code” . . . NOT a Statute because it is NOT an ACT OF CONGRESS because it has NOT been enacted into law by Congress and is NOT published in THE STATUTES OF LARGE and does NOT requires an IMPLEMENTING REGULATION, but does REQUIRE an OMB NUMBER and EXPIRATION DATE because it is promulgated by the IRS without authority.
The IRC of 1986 . . . is a Statute because it is an ACT OF CONGRESS located in THE STATUTES AT LARGE and must have an IMPLEMENTING REGULATION, but is NOT REQUIRED to have an OMB NUMBER or EXPIRATION DATE.
NOTE: IF YOU OWE A TAX, THERE IS AN AUTOMATIC LIEN AGAINST YOU WHETHER YOU KNOW IT OR NOT AND IN THE GOVERNMENT’S MIND YOUR RIGHTS ARE SUBROGATED TO THE UNITED STATES WHETHER YOU THINK YOU OWE THE TAX OR NOT!
I KNOW HOW TO UNDO THE SUBROGATION WITH MY FOIA’S!
I CAN UNDO THE SUBROGATION WITH MY FOIA’S!
Every year the IRS goes in and amends the amendment of the amendment of the previous to change the wording of all the statutes and the cfr’s.
There are 3 different sets of the CFR’s.
One is for implementing the statutes.
The second is administrative telling the IRS what to do or how to administer the law.
The third is interpretative and administrative also.
They change the 3 CFR’s every year too!!!!
There is new case law for all of this crap that comes out every year!
SO DO NOT TELL ME THAT IT’S ALL THE SAME!!!!
The affirmative defenses that worked one year might not work for the previous or the subsequent year.
Further, you might NOT even know this yet, but which code or statute are they using against you?
Are they using Title 26 of the . . . “United States Code” . . . against you?
Or are they using the . . . “Internal Revenue Code of 1986" . . . against you?
Or are they using a newer subsequent . . . IRC against you?
What you didn’t know that the . . . “Internal Revenue Code of 1986" . . . has been repealed?
"To be conscious that you are ignorant is a great step to knowledge." Benjamin Disraeli, Sybil (1845).
"It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya. What really puts a hurtin' on ya is what ya knows for sure, that just ain't so." -- Uncle Remus
What you didn’t know that they have passed a new Internal Revenue Code?
"To be conscious that you are ignorant is a great step to knowledge." Benjamin Disraeli, Sybil (1845).
"It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya. What really puts a hurtin' on ya is what ya knows for sure, that just ain't so." -- Uncle Remus
How can you defend yourself if you don’t even know which codes or statutes they are using against you?
How can your . . . “IRS GURU” . . . or . . . “TAX RETURN TEAM” . . . even try to help you when they don’t even know which codes or statutes they are using against you????
“Let them alone, they be the blind leaders of the blind: and if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” Mathew 15:14
Have you been used and burned by . . . Mr. Pete Hendrickson’s Cracking the Code method of a form 1040 and a form 4852????
“Let them alone, they be the blind leaders of the blind: and if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” Mathew 15:14
Is you paycheck being pirated after using . . . PAYCHECK PIRACY . . . & . . . PREFERRED SERVICES . . . STOP WITHHOLDING FORMS????
“Let them alone, they be the blind leaders of the blind: and if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” Mathew 15:14
Which Code or Statute are they using against you, do you know????
Is it Title 26 U.S.C.????
Is it Title 26 IRC????
1 is an Act of Congress and the other isn’t!
Title 26 of the . . . “United States Code” . . . is NOT an Act of Congress, it is NOT positive law.
You can only go to jail for violating an Act of Congress or a court’s martial pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4001, 18 U.S.C. 4083 and 18 U.S.C. 4086!
However, many ill prepared patriots went to prison trying to make some of these argument with half cocked and half assed research and didn’t know what to do next!
I know what to do next!
The . . . “Internal Revenue Code” . . . and Title 26 of the . . . “United States Code” . . . are NOT the same thing!
Title 26 of the . . . “United States Code” . . . is NOT the same thing as . . . “The Internal Revenue Code of 1986.”
Title 26 U.S.C. is NOT the same thing as the . . . “Internal Revenue Code.”
The affirmative defenses are 100% completely different depending on whether they are using the Internal Revenue Code or Title 26 of the United States Code against you?
But, how can you possibly even defend yourself if you, your 1040 tax return team or your tax dishonesty guru does NOT even know which code or statute they are using against you?
“Let them alone, they be the blind leaders of the blind: and if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” Mathew 15:14
Stop answer shopping, stop guru shopping, you will not find anyone who is getting any kind of positive results in stopping the IRS who is working cheaper than me period.
Forget what you know about IRS TAX LAWS!!!!
Forget what you think you know about IRS TAX LAWS!!!!
"It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya. What really puts a hurtin' on ya is what ya knows for sure, that just ain't so." -- Uncle Remus
"To be conscious that you are ignorant is a great step to knowledge." Benjamin Disraeli, Sybil (1845).
The number 1 main purpose of my FOIA RELIANCE DEFENSE PACKAGE is to ward off a potential future CRIMINAL PROSECUTION for either WILLFUL FAILURE TO FILE INCOME TAX RETURNS and INCOME TAX EVASION.
WITH MY FOIA RELIANCE DEFENSE DOCUMENTS IN PLAY, THE IRS AND THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY WORKING FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WILL BACK OFF!!!!
HOWEVER, IF YOU ARE TOO LATE, the secondary purpose of my FOIA RELIANCE DEFENSE PACKAGE is to help set you up for a PRE-TRIAL DISMISSAL in case you are too far down the pike and the IRS has already decided to indict you.
Under the doctrine of . . . FAILURE TO EXHAUST ALL ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES . . . you could . . . HIRE ME . . . to write the . . . PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS . . . to dismiss the IRS’s CASE on the grounds that they failed to exhaust all administrative remedies before they brought you to the judicial branch and attempted to prosecute you in either a civil or criminal action.
WE WILL BE CREATING . . . “THE EXCLUSIVE RECORD FOR REVIEW.”
Please review . . . 5 U.S.C. 554, 556 and 557 . . . of the UNITED STATES CODE back on GOOGLE!!!!
WE DO NOT CARE WHAT THEIR RESPONSE WILL BE!!!!
WE ONLY CARE THAT WE HAVE PROOF THAT WE REQUESTED THESE DOCUMENTS BY MAKING AND KEEPING COPIES OF ALL THE CERTIFIED AND REGISTERED MAIL RECEIPTS FOR EACH AND EVERY FOIA PACKAGE!
At a very minimum, this FOIA RELIANCE DEFENSE PACKAGE will go a long way towards helping keeping you and your wife from going to jail for either willful failure to file income tax returns or income tax evasion, because now you have set up a perfect RELIANCE DEFENSE to WILLFULNESS!
If you do end up getting charged, you must HIRE ME to do the criminal case, because nobody but me knows how to make my FOIA RELIANCE DEFENSE PACKAGE work or have any effect in the criminal case.
* * *
Another thing, you might only be at . . . “THE NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY” . . . stage of the proceedings.
Here is what I propose that we do . . . AFTER . . . you purchase 1 of my many FOIA packages:
Look at your “notice of deficiency” letter and you will see that it has a section or box or line where it asks you to provide them with an ANSWER or a REASON . . . WHY YOU THINK THAT YOU ARE NOT LIABLE.
Hint: NOBODY in the entire TAX HONESTY MOVEMENT is responding to that question!
After the IRS fails to provide some of the . . . SECRET THINGS . . . I am not going to tell you about yet, I can write that letter telling them . . . “WHY YOU ARE NOT LIABLE
After the IRS fails to provide some of the . . . SECRET THINGS . . . I am not going to tell you about yet, I can write another letter . . . and . . . DEMAND . . . that they CORRECT YOUR MISTAKEN STATUS AS A TAX PAYER!!!!
Yes, I will charge separately to write those two separate letter’s!
Those who expect to reap the blessing of liberty must undergo the fatigue of supporting it.” Thomas Paine
* * *
I will NOT teach any attorney what to do or how to use my FOIA RELIANCE DEFENSE PACKAGE.
If you want to go to prison, hire the attorney!
Did you know that when you hire any attorney to . . . “REPRESENT YOU” . . . that you have . . . “WAIVED YOUR RIGHTS TO COUNSEL”????
Did you know that when you accept any Public Defender who is an attorney to . . . “REPRESENT YOU” . . . that you have . . . “WAIVED YOUR RIGHTS TO COUNSEL”????
DID YOU KNOW THAT THE TRUTH IS THAT THE PERSON WHO IS REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY HAS A FOOL FOR A CLIENT . . . AND A FOOL FOR AN ATTORNEY!!!!
If you want to go to prison, accept the public defender!
Did you know that when you accept or allow a public defender who is an attorney who is a member of the very same State Bar Association as all the U.S. Attorney’s and all the Judges, that you have . . . “WAIVED YOUR RIGHTS TO COUNSEL”????
DID YOU KNOW THAT THE TRUTH IS THAT THE PERSON WHO IS REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY HAS A FOOL FOR A CLIENT . . . AND A FOOL FOR AN ATTORNEY!!!!
EVERYBODY WHO ALLOWS AN ATTORNEY TO . . . “REPRESENT THEM” . . . VOLUNTEERS TO GO TO PRISON UNDER ARGERSENGER v. HAMLIN which reads:
““We hold that no person may be deprived of his liberty who has been denied the assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. This holding is applicable to all criminal prosecutions, including prosecutions for violations of municipal ordinances. The denial of assistance of counsel will preclude the imposition of a jail sentence. . . . Under the rule we announce today, every judge will know when the trial of a misdemeanor starts that no imprisonment may be imposed, even though local law permits it, UNLESS THE ACCUSED IS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. He will have a measure of the seriousness and gravity of the offense and therefore know when to name a lawyer to represent the accused before the trial starts.” ARGERSINGER v. HAMLIN, 407 U.S. 25 (June 12, 1972). And;
Now go read Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 819, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 45 L. Ed. 2d 562 (1975) and then read . . . “THE DISSENTING OPINION” . . . in Farreta, supra, and then go back and read Argersenger v. Hamlin, supra, and then tell me if you can see or figure out where . . . “THEY SWITCHED OUT THE WORDS” . . . “REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL” . . . in place of . . . “ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL” . . . in . . . “A DICTA LIKE MANNER” . . . and then tell me where in the Sixth Amendment does it say that any of us has an alleged . . . “RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED.”
YES, I HAVE EXPOSED THE BIGGEST FRAUD IN LEGAL HISTORY!!!!
IT IS NOW UNDISPUTED THAT ANYBODY AND EVERYBODY WHO HIRES AN ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT THEM HAS A FOOL FOR A CLIENT . . . AND A FOOL FOR AN ATTORNEY!!!!
If you want to go to prison try to do it yourself!
If you want to go back to prison for probation violations, try to do it yourself!
If you don’t want to go to prison, HIRE ME . . . to provide you . . . “THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL” . . . as envisioned by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, your State Constitution and the Judiciary Act of 1789 was passed on September 24, 1789 and is an Act of Congres
See 1 Stat 73 at section 35 which reads:
“SEC. 35. And be it further enacted, That in all courts of the United States, the parties may plead and manage their own causes personally or by assistance of such counsel or attorneys at law as by the rules of the said courts respectively shall be permitted to manage and conduct causes therein. And there shall be appointed in each district a meet person learned in the law to act as attorney for the United States in such district, who shall be sworn or affirmed to the faithful execution of his office, whose duty it shall be to prosecute in such district all delinquents for crimes and offences, cognizable under the authority of the United States, and all civil actions in which the United States shall be concerned, except before the supreme court in the district in which that court shall be holden. And he shall receive as compensation for his services such fees as shall be taxed therefor in the respective courts before which the suits or prosecutions shall be. And there shall also be appointed a meet person, learned in the law, to act as attorney-general for the United States, who shall be sworn or affirmed to a faithful execution of his office; whose duty it shall be to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the President of the United States, or when requested by the heads of any of the departments, touching any matters that may concern their departments, and shall receive such compensation for his services as shall by law be provided..” The Judiciary Act of 1789, September 24, 1789, 1 Stat 73, CHAP. XX, Sec. 35.
Section 35 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 provides no less than . . . “three different’ . . . ways by which a defendant may appear in court which is clearly worded in . . . the disjunctive . . . “OR’ . . . and clearly states that . . . “the parties may plead and manage their own causes personally” . . . OR . . . “by assistance of such counsel” . . . OR . . . “attorneys at law” . . . as by the rules of the said courts respectively shall be permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.
Section 35 of the Judiciary Act was codified at 28 U.S.C. 1654 which provides that:
“TITLE 28 > PART V > CHAPTER 111 > § 1654
§ 1654. Appearance personally or by counsel
In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.”
28 U.S.C. 1654 Appearance personally or by counsel like section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1792 is also worded in the disjunctive “or” and it clearly states that . . . “In all courts of the United States . . . “the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally” . . . OR . . . “by counsel” . . . as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.”
I OBJECT YOUR HONOR, THE ACTS OF CONGRESS AND THE UNITED STATES CODE CLEARLY STATES THAT I CAN . . . “PLEAD AND MANAGE MY OWN CASES PERSONALLY” . . . AND DOES NOT STATE THAT I HAVE TO REPRESENT MYSELF OR THAT I HAVE TO WAIVE MY RIGHTS TO COUNSEL IN ORDER TO DO MY OWN CASE!!!!
I AM NOT REPRESENTING MY SELF AND I DO NOT WAIVE MY RIGHTS TO THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL!
I hope this is helpful to all those who don’t want to be the fool for a client who hires an attorney to represent him!
Sincerely
Luis Ewing at (253) 226-3741 or (360) 353-4846 or call me on SKYPE at <luisewing>
PS – “If my people, among whom my Name is called upon, do humble themselves, and pray and seek my presence, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear in heaven and be merciful to their sin, and will heal their land: .” 2 Chronicles 7:14.
Note: – To hear Kurt Riggin, lloyd smith, Matt from Michigan, Michael James Anthony and Luis Ewing speak, call in at . . . 1 - (347) 215-9477 . . . or just go to Google & type in . . . BLOG TALK RADIO . . . and Search for . . . “Pro-se Winners” . . . or just click on this LINK to Pro-se Winners here: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/pro-se-winners
Blog Talk Chat Board:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/flashchat/chat.aspx?HostUserURL=pro-se-winners
THE 1599 GENEVA BIBLE at <http://www.americanvision.com>; at 1 TIMOTHY Chapter 5, verse 18 says:
“For the Scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn: and, the laborer is worthy of his wages.” 1 Timothy, 5:18.
“Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not high minded, and that they trust no in uncertain riches, but in the living God, (which giveth us abundantly all things to enjoy.) 1 Timothy 6:17
“That they do good, and be rich in good works, and be ready to distribute, and communicate. 1 Timothy 6:18
“That ye may behave yourselves honestly toward them that are without, and that nothing be lacking unto you.” 1 Thessalonians 4:12
“And he answered, and said unto them, He that hath two coats, let him part with him that hath none: and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.” Luke 3:11
“But woe be to you that are rich: for ye have received your consolation.” Luke 6:24
“Woe be to you that are full: for ye shall hunger. Woe be to you that now laugh: for ye shall wail and weep.” Luke 6:25
“For unto every man that hath, it shall be given, and he shall have abundance, and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away.” Mathew 25:29
“For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that he being rich, for your sakes became poor, that ye through his poverty might be made rich.” 2 Corinthians 8:9
“And I show my mind herein: for this is expedient for you, which have begun not to do only, but also to will, a year ago.” 2 Corinthians 8:10
“Now therefore perform to do it also, that as there was a readiness to will, even so ye may perform it of that which ye have.” 2 Corinthians 8:11
“For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not.” 2 Corinthians 8:12
“Neither is it that other men should be eased and you grieved: But upon like condition, at this time your abundance supplieth their lack:” 2 Corinthians 8:13
“That also their abundance may be for your lack, that there may be equality.” 2 Corinthians 8:14
“As it is written, He that gathered much, had nothing over, and he that gathered little, had not the less.” 2 Corinthian 8:15
“This yet remember, that he which soweth sparingly, shall reap also sparingly, and he that soweth liberally, shall also reap liberally.” 2 Corinthians 9:6
“As every man wisheth in his heart, so let him give, not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.” 2 Corinthians 9:7
“And God is able to make all grace to abound toward you, that ye always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound in every good work,” 2 Corinthians 9:8
“(As it is written, He has sparsed abroad and hath given to the poor: his benevolence remaineth for ever.” 2 Corinthians 9:9
“Also he that findeth seed to the sower, will minister likewise bread for food, and multiply your seed, and increase the fruits of your benevolence.)” 2 Corinthians 9:10
“That on all parts ye made rich unto all liberality, which causeth through us thanksgiving unto God.” 2 Corinthians 9:11
“Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell that thou hast, and give it to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come, and follow me.” Mathew 19:21 and Mark 10:19
“And when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.” Mathew 19:22 and Mark 10:22
“Then Jesus said unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Mathew 19:23 and Mark 10:23 & 10:24
“And I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” Mathew 19:24 and Mark 10:25
“And when his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?” Mathew 19:25 and Mark 10:26
“And Jesus beheld hem, and said unto them, With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Mathew 19:26 and Mark 10:27
“Then answered Peter, and said to him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee: what therefore shall we have?” Mathew 19:27 and Mark 10:28
“Jesus answered, and said, Verily I say unto you, there is no man that hath forsaken house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my sake and the Gospels, . . .:” Mark 10:28
“But he shall receive an hundredfold, now at this present, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands with persecutions, and in the world to come, eternal life.” Mark 10:30
“And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say to you, that when the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of his Majesty, ye which followed me in the regeneration, shall sit also upon twelve thrones, and judge the twelve tribes of Israel.” Mathew 19:28
“And when the Son of man cometh in his glory and all the holy Angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory, . . .” Mathew 25:31
“And before him shall be gathered all nations, and he shall separate them one from another as a shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats.” Mathew 25:32
“And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, and the goats on the left.” Mathew 25:33
“Then shall the king say to them on his right hand, Come ye blessed of my father: take the inheritance of the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” Mathew 25:34
“For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I thirsted, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me unto you.” Mathew 25:35
“I was naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.” Mathew 25:36
“Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed thee? Or athirst, and gave thee drink.” Mathew 25:37
“And when saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in unto us? or naked, and clothed thee? Mathew 25:38
“Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?” Mathew 25:39
“And the king shall answer, and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it to me.” Mathew 25:40
“Then shall he say to them on the left hand, Depart from my ye cursed, into everlasting fire, which is prepared for the devil and his angels.” Mathew 25:41
“For I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat: I thirsted, and ye gave me no drink.” Mathew 25:42
“I was a stranger, and ye took me not in unto you: I was naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.” Mathew 25:43
“Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?” Mathew 25:44
“Then shall he answer them, and say, Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.” Mathew 25:45
“And these shall go into everlasting pain, and the righteous into life eternal.” Mathew 25:46
PS – Web Sites under construction: [<www.rcwcodebuster.com>] or [<www.luisewing.com>] or [<www.ultimateusers.com>] or [<www.irsbuster.com>] or [<www.irsslayer.com>]
To hear Kurt Riggin, lloyd smith, Matt from Michigan, Michael James Anthony and Luis Ewing speak, call in at . . . 1 - (724) 444-7444 . . . & use . . . Call ID: 120418 . . . or just go to Google & type in . . . TALKSHOE . . . and Search for . . . "Pro-se Winners" . . . or go to the main board & click the purple LIVE NOW button or just click on this LINK to Pro-se Winners here: [<http://www.talkshoe.com/tc/120418>]
DO YOU WANT TO CONTACT . . . lloyd smith . . . or . . . KURT RIGGIN?
You can contact lloyd smith at (360) 289-3429 or E-Mail to <godspastor@gmail.com> or <godspastor (at) gmail (dot) com>
You can contact Kurt Riggin at : <kurtriggin@comcast.net> or <kurtriggin (at) comcast (dot) net>
DO YOU WANT TO CONTACT . . . MICHAEL JAMES ANTHONY . . . or . . . MATT FROM MICHIGAN?
You may contact MICHAEL JAMES ANTHONY at: <michaeljamesanthony@msn.com> or [michaeljamesanthony (at) msn (dot) com] or <michaeljamesanthony@yahoo.com> or [michaeljamesanthony (at) yahoo (dot) com] or <Michael@2auditmortgages.com> or [Michael (at) 2auditmortgages (dot) com]
You may contact MATT FROM MICHIGAN at: <matt.from.michigan@gmail.com> or [matt (dot) from (dot) michigan (at) gmail (dot) com]
AUTHORITY TO PRACTICE LAW . . . “WITHOUT ADMISSION” . . . by the WASHINGTON STATE SUPREME COURT: RCW 2.48.190; RCW 38.38.256; 5 U.S.C. 500 (b); RCW 34.05.428 (1)(2); RCW 4.92.100 (1)(b)(ii); RCW 4.96.020; RCW 7.04A.160; RCW 7.68.270; RCW 7.69.030 (14); RCW 7.69.040; RCW 10.14.09; RCW 10.21.060; RCW 11.94.010; RCW 11.94.050 (1); RCW 64.36.035; RCW 26.16.090; RCW 26.25.010; RCW 26.21.005 (19)(a); RCW 26.21A.005 (21)(a); RCW 26.26.011 (19); RCW 26.27.021 (16); RCW 26.27.041; RCW 70.48.050; WAC 289-22-200 (4); WAC 242-02-110; 25 U.S.C. 1321; 25 U.S.C. 1322; 18 U.S.C. § 1154; 18 U.S.C. § 1161; 18 U.S.C. § 2265; 25 U.S.C. § 1301; 25 U.S.C. § 1903 (4); 25 U.S.C. § 1903 (8); 25 U.S.C. § 1911 (a)(b)(c); 25 U.S.C. § 1901 -1963 (“ICWA”); 25 U.S.C. § 3631; 43 U.S.C. 1602; 44 Fed. Reg. 67584 to 67595 (1979); 26 CFR § 305.7871-1 (a); 26 U.S.C. § 7701 (a)(40)(A); 31 CFR Subtitle A, § 10.3; 8 CFR Ch. 1, § 292.1; 8 U.S.C. § 1401 (b); 25 U.S.C. § 465; RCW 2.48.170; RCW 2.48.180 (7); APR 1.1 (a); GR 24 (b)(8); Sections 3275 & 3276 of the Territorial Code of 1881; 28 U.S.C. § 1333; 28 U.S.C. § 1652; FRCP Rule 64; RCW 4.04.010; RCW 1.12.030; RCW 9A.04.060; RCW 9.81.120; RCW 10.14.020 (1); RCW 10.14.020 (2); RCW 9A.50.060; 31 CFR Subtitle A; 31 CFR Subtitle A, § 10.3; 8 CFR Ch. 1, § 292.1; 8 CFR 292.1-3; 25 CFR 20; 14 CFR 300.1-6, 302.11; 12 CFR 19.3; 16 CFR 1024.61; 7CFR 273; 7 CFR 50.27; 35 U.S.C. §§ 31-33; 57 CFR 1.34; 5 CFR part 1201; 32 CFR 12.40, 12.45; 45 CFR 205; 21 CFR 1316.50; 20 CFR 802.201 (b), 802.202; 20 CFR 501.11; 45 U.S.C. 3153; 45 U.S.C. § 151; 20 CFR 725.362 (a), 725.365, 725.366 (b); 46 CFR 201.21; 38 CFR 14; 12 CFR 308.04; 18 CFR 385.2101; 29 CFR 2700.3 (b); 31 U.S.C. 731-32; 4 CFR 11, 28, GAO Orders 2713.2, 2752.1 and 2777.1; 13 CFR Part 10; 31 U.S.C. 330; 49 CFR 1103; 49 CFR 1103.3; 12 CFR 747; 29 CFR 1200; 49 CFR 821, 831, 845; 29 CFR 2200.22); 13 CFR 121.11, 134.16; 42 U.S.C 406 (a); 20 CFR 416, subpart O; 29 CFR 1614.605; 40 CFR 124, 164.30, 22.10; Schoonover v. State, 116 Wn.App. 171, 64 P.3d 677 (March 11, 2003); Lowell Bar Ass’n v. Loeb, 52 N.E.2d 27 (Mass., 1943); U.S. v. Tarlowksi, 69-2 U.S.T.C., DC. E. DIST. N.Y.) 305 F.Supp. 112 (1969); In re Petition of Burson, 909 S.W.2d 768 (Tenn. 1995); Oregon State Bar. v. Ortiz, 713 P.2d 1068, 1069 (Or.App. 1986); People By Lefkowitz v. Lawrence Peska Assoc., 393 N.Y.S.2d 650, 652 (1977); Pulse v. North American Land Title Co., 707 P.2d 1105 (Mont. 1985); Cain v. National Bank and Trust Co., 268 N.W. 719, 723 (N.D. 1936); Louisiana Bar Ass’n v. Edwin, 519 So.2d 93 (La. 1988); Oregon State Bar v. Smith, 942 P.2d 793 (Or. Ct. App. 1997); In re Joseph Children, 470 S.E.2d 539 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996); Sequa Corp. v. Lititech, Inc., 780 F.Supp. 1349, 1352 (D. Colo. 1992); Taylor v. Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 874 P.2d 806, 809 (Okla. 1994); State Bar of Arizona v. Arizona Land Title & Trust Co., 371 P.2d 1020, 1022 (Ariz. 1962); State ex rel Indiana State Bar Ass’n v. Indiana Real Estate Ass’n Inc., 191 N.E.2d 711 (Ind., 1963); Ingham County Bar Ass’n v. Walter Neller & Co., 69 N.W.2d 713 (Mich., 1955); Hulse v. Criger, 247 S.W.E2d 855 (Mo., 1952); Cowern v. Nelson, 290 N.W. 795 (Minn., 1940); Oregon State Bar v. Security Escrows Inc., et al., 377 P.2d 334, 340 (Ore., 1962); LaBrum v. Commonwealth Title Co., 368 Pa. 239, 56 A.2d 246 (1948); Conway-Boque Realty Inv. Co. v. Denver Bar Ass’n, 312 P.2d 998 (Colo. 1957); Lawyers and The Realtors: Arizona’s Experience, 49 ABAJ 139 (Feb. 1963); 32 N.J. 430, 161 A.2d 257, AT 264 (N.J. - 1970); Board of Immigration Appeals; Bureau of Indian Affairs; Department of Agriculture; Department of Commerce; Department of Health and Human Services; Public Health and Human Services; Department of Justice; Department of Transportation; Department of Veteran Affairs; Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Customs Service; The Judiciary Act of 1789, September 24, 1789, 1 Stat. 73, CHAP. XX Sec. 35, 28 U.S.C. 1654, the Sixth Amendment and First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and article 1, section’s 1, 2, 22, 29 and 30 of the Washington State Constitution, CrR 1.1, CrRLJ 1.1, CrR 1.3 (a) and ARLJ No. 7. See also CR 82.5 (a) & RCW 13.34.240.
CAVEAT WITH REMOVAL INSTRUCTIONS HERE: This E-Mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510 to 18 U.S.C. 2521; RCW 9.73.030 (1)(a)(b); RCW 9A.52.110; RCW 9A.52.120; RCW 9A.52.130 and RCW 9.73.020 and is legally privileged and you do NOT have my “consent” for forward this e-mail to anyone. The information contained in this E-Mail is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or attorney or agent responsible to deliver it to the Sendee, please destroy the E-Mail after advising by reply that you erroneously received this E-Mail. The receipt by anyone other than the designated recipient does NOT waive the lawyer or “of-counsel client privilege,” nor will it constitute a waiver of the “work-product doctrine.” Any information obtained in violation of RCW 9.73.030; RCW 9A.52.110; RCW 9A.52.120; RCW 9A.52.130 and RCW 9.73.020 is inadmissible in court pursuant to RCW 9.73.050 and further, anyone who forwards this e-mail to anyone else without my express prior “written consent” is liable for civil monetary damages under Washington law pursuant to RCW 9.73.060 and criminal penalties under RCW 9.73.080. The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential and may be hazardous to your preconceptions. FREE DISTRIBUTION: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed free “only” to those specific recipients listed above who have previously expressed an interest in receiving the information for research and educational purposes and have made a prior request for said information. If the reader of this message is not the intended addressee, the reader is hereby notified that any consideration, dissemination or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. RCW 9.73.030 (1)(a)(b)(C); RCW 9.73.050; RCW 9.73.060 and RCW 9.73.080 This message is being sent to you in compliance with the current Federal legislation for commercial e-mail (H.R.417 SECTION101Paragraph (e)(1)(A)) AND Bill s.1618 TITLE III passed by the 105th U.S. Congress. REMOVAL INSTRUCTIONS: This message cannot be considered SPAM as long as it includes: 1) contact information, and 2) a way to be removed from future e-mailings. If this e-mail communication has reached you in error, or should you wish to be permanently removed from the mailing list, PLEASE SEND ME AN E-MAIL REQUESTING THAT I REMOVE YOU FROM MY E-MAIL LIST AND I WILL REMOVE YOU WITHIN 72 HOURS FROM MY RECEIPT OF YOUR E-MAIL although it may take me 4 to 5 days to catch up to your e-mail because I get so many e-mail request’s for my FREE FLYERS from all over the U.S. or please return to the below listed address asking me to remove you to Luis Ewing, c/o 34218 S.E. 22nd Way, (City of) Washougal, The State of Washington [98671-8793] or call and leave a message with your E-Mail address and request to be removed at (253) 226-3741. Thank you!
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
www.maxexchange.com/ybj/chapter_1.htm
