Half the USCode are rebuttable presumptions

Is this the legal path back to unalienable rights?

Deep Dive into legalese… are you brave enough?

For those that think the federal government has grown too big, too powerful, this article will propose a strategy of how the voters could shrink it… massively. This isn’t going to happen in one election cycle since it will take educating well over 50% of the voters. It starts with educating ourselves to become more ‘legal minded’, thus, these articles which lay some foundation to begin changing people’s perspective. Perhaps these articles will cause some legal minds to see things differently and spark an epiphany that will be a faster way to pour cold water on the District of Criminals and accomplish some massive shrinkage.

“Is this the legal path back to unalienable rights?” I think there’s a very good chance that it could be. All that is necessary to shrink the federal beast is to drastically reduce its food source — revenue. No easy task, I assure you, but I think very doable…

We need to start with some background on federal laws, the U.S. Code. This article will be using Black’s Law Dictionary (BLD), 6th Edition, for all legal definitions — these are NOT my opinion!

Look at the United States Code, US Code.

Each collection of laws is focused on a specific topic and is referred to as a ‘Title’, e.g., Title 26 is “Internal Revenue Code”. There are 54 Titles, and you’ll notice that about half of them have an asterisk ‘*’ next to them which is explained in the footnote:

* This title has been enacted as positive law. However, any Appendix to this title has not been enacted as part of the title.

BLD: “Positive Law. Law actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper authority for the government of an organized jural society. See also Legislation.

Seems pretty straightforward… the only valid ‘laws’ are those enacted by the government entity that is delegated that authority — namely, the State legislatures for state laws, the US Congress for the USCode. The unstated assumption is that the law falls under one of the ‘delegated authorities’ in the state’s constitution or US Constitution. I.e., States and the Feds cannot just write something up, vote on it and enforce it as a ‘law’. It must fall into one of the areas of authority that We the People have delegated to government via the various constitutions.

Uncovering the obfuscation…

On the left-hand side of the US Code is a link “Positive Law Codification”:

Let’s see what that is…

Red-Flag — here comes the word-salad! Jeez, do you think the people that write this stuff could do it in a more unambiguous manner? Did they fail English class? No, I’m sure they are highly skilled attorneys, skilled at purposely confusing the rest of us so we just assume that the laws apply to us.

The above screen capture is only half the page. It is a diversion. It explains the process of how laws are revised and eventually enacted as positive law. Good to know but that process is not important to what is being taught here.

Look at the first link on the page… it’s an entire line by itself that you can’t overlook:

‘Links to Current and Recently Completed Positive Law Codification Projects’

The next link you probably missed — ‘More’ — is just a single word (after the highlighted text below), but I’m sure the authors didn’t do that on purpose so We the Peeps would miss it. The ‘More’ link is the only one you should click:

Oh dear… gourmet salad! Can I have Bleu Cheese dressing with that?

This is where it gets down to ‘explaining’, and I use that term loosely, the difference between positive and non-positive law as it is used in the NARROW (more limited) sense in the USCode.

POSITIVE law:

NON-Positive law:

How about some obfuscatory dessert?

WTF? Look at that first sentence. How can non-positive law be positive law???

This is NOT by accident. You can’t convince me that this couldn’t be done in a much more explicit manner that is intelligible to one with a high school education. This fact alone is proof that our system of legislation is way too complicated; that the laws, and explanations of the laws like above, are worded in a manner that is purposefully confusing and meant to discourage us from challenging it. This has enabled the ballooning expansion of the federal government.

Titles that have been enacted into positive law are those areas that are based on the delegated authority in the US Constitution and are NOT considered rebuttable presumptions. Congress was delegated the authority to enact laws regarding these areas. E.g., ‘Title 10 — Armed Forces’ was able to be enacted as positive law because Congress was delegated the authority for writing laws regarding national defense. On the other hand, look at Title 6 — Domestic Security and Title 7 — Agriculture. Neither are positive law… Why? Because there is nothing in the US Constitution that gives Congress authority to enact legislation regarding these areas. So what? What does that mean in a practical sense? The ‘laws’ in these titles are prima facie evidence of the law.

Prima facie. At first sight; on the first appearance; on the face of it; so far as can be judged from the first disclosure; presumably; a fact presumed to be true unless disproved by some evidence to the contrary. See also Presumption.

The most descriptive is the last one, “a fact presumed to be true unless disproved by some evidence to the contrary.”

Prima facie evidence. Evidence good and sufficient on its face. Such evidence as, in the judgment of the law, is sufficient to establish a given fact, or the group or chain of facts constituting the party's claim or defense, and which if not rebutted or contradicted, will remain sufficient.

Evidence which, if unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to sustain a judgment in favor of the issue which it supports, but which may be contradicted by other evidence.

That quantum of evidence that suffices for proof of a particular fact until the fact is contradicted by other evidence; once a trier of fact is faced with conflicting evidence, it must weigh the prima facie evidence with all of the other probative evidence presented.
See also Presumptive evidence.

NON-positive law SUFFICES to establish proof of a law UNTIL CONTRADICTORY evidence is presented.

The government’s own website confirms what I've stated above:

The strategy for shrinkage…

Given the immense importance of revenue, one would think that the Title under which the IRS operates would be positive law? Obviously, right? Guess again… look at Title 26 — Internal Revenue Code in the list at the top of the article. It has NOT been enacted into positive law — it is NON-positive law. WTF??

The interesting thing is that the US Constitution DOES delegate the authority of taxation, both direct and indirect taxation, to Congress, so why hasn’t Title-26 been enacted into positive law? The Constitution delegates that authority to Congress so no reason this entire Title couldn’t be positive law. In the website’s explanation of non-positive law, it says that sections have been enacted into positive law, but since some sections have not been enacted into positive law, then the entire Title cannot be enacted into positive law. So, they make a distinction between:

• Titles whose entire contents can be enacted into positive law, and,

• Titles whose entire contents cannot be enacted into positive law.

I’m an INTP personality, and NT’s think the implications behind the facts are more interesting; are more important. My mind says that Title 26 has been around for around 100 years, so it asks the obvious question,

WHAT SECTIONS CANNOT BE ENACTED AS POSITIVE LAW, and WHY?

This triggers a plethora of additional questions:

• Is it because those sections only apply to US citizens (federal citizenship)?

• If so, then would someone who is a State citizen, but NOT a US citizen, be outside the scope of those sections? You can be just a State citizen .

• If so, then someone who is only a State citizen would not be liable for taxes imposed by those sections? Disclaimer, this is not financial advice! Pay all the taxes you are legally liable for.

• Is this why the SCOTUS ruled that US citizenship is ‘paramount and dominant’ over State citizenship? Because there are no laws currently enacted that would impose any kind of tax on those with unalienable rights?

• Was that SCOTUS ruling by accident or by design? Read ‘The Creature from Jekyll Island’.

The strategy is that with only State citizenship the average working stiff would NOT be liable for personal income tax. How much would the government’s revenue shrink?

First column is for the federal personal income tax… 50%!

Wow, that is some major shrinkage!

Continuing with the assumption of State citizens having NO liability for federal income tax, what now? The next step is to revoke one’s US citizenship and reaffirm/declare one’s State citizenship. Could be relatively straightforward. We certainly have extensive legal precedence that one does NOT have to have both US and State citizenship. You can be a State citizen without being a US citizen. I think this would be fairly easy to do, and there are some who say they have done it.

The Legal Path…

Next would be to challenge the IRS’s jurisdiction over you as a State citizen; or challenge whether certain sections apply to you. This is where I’m outside my comfort zone. I feel there is a legal path available, but navigating the legal quagmire will take extensive and wide-ranging legal expertise to make sure it’s done by the book so as not to be tripped up by procedural errors. For example, just having a lawyer can be a liability! For NON-positive law Titles, if one wishes to challenge a court’s jurisdiction to even hear your case, and you hire an attorney to represent you, you’ve already lost on procedure, not merit. This definition was highlighted and on a dog-eared page:

In propria persona. In one’s own proper person. It was formerly a rule in pleading that pleas to the jurisdiction of the court must be plead in propria persona, because if pleaded by attorney they admit the jurisdiction, as an attorney is an officer of the court, and he is presumed to plead after having obtained leave, which admits the jurisdiction. See Pro se.

Pro se. For one’s own behalf; in person. Appearing for oneself, as in the case of one who does not retain a lawyer and appears for himself in court.

This certainly implies that if you’re going to challenge any of the non-positive Titles of the USCode, as to whether they apply to you, you better not hire an attorney. The only reason I know the above caveat is because, about 20 years ago, when ‘browsing’ through my legal dictionary, I happened to read the above definitions and dog-eared the page because I thought it was important! The legal/justice system is a very complex web of rules and procedures… mess up with just one thing and the court could rule against you, and not because your legal argument was wrong. You can have a solid legal case, but screw up on procedure and you’ve lost.

My guess is that if this movement ever gained any kind of backing by voters, the Feds would do everything they can to squash it. There are at least three former IRS agents that resigned or were fired because they questioned the application of the personal income tax for the average person, and they have gone through hell because of it. There’s an attorney who also came to the same conclusion, stopped paying federal income tax, was charged by the DOJ, and won his case, but it cost him dearly. Makes me wonder what the hell I’m doing writing this! The federal gov is out of control and we need to push back…

---