Time: Mon Oct 06 07:06:54 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA12782;
	Mon, 6 Oct 1997 07:04:33 -0700 (MST)
	by usr09.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA15445;
	Mon, 6 Oct 1997 07:04:15 -0700 (MST)
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 07:03:36 -0700
To: "Harold Thomas" <harold@halcyon.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Is the IRC plain English?
References: <3.0.3.16.19971005153908.3227e8d4@pop.primenet.com>
 <199710052026.NAA02069@mail1.halcyon.com>

If you read Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF, we show
how the term "this title" refers clearly to Title 28,
where it matters, in the rules which govern the
federal courts.  The terms "this title" or "title"
are NOT defined in the IRC, therefore, I infer that
"title" refers to Title 26, if only because there is
vagueness on this point, and doubt should be
resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is
sought to be laid.  This argument is made with
full force in Point 7 in Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF,
now available in the Supreme Law Library ("SLL").

The implications are enormous, because subtitle F
contains ALL the enforcement mechanisms of the IRC.

Please understand that I roll either way with answers:
I don't really care if people agree or disagree;  I use 
the disagreements as empirical proof that men of common
intelligence cannot agree on the meaning of the law;
contrast this with stop for red, and go for green!
The latter is a just, fair, and utterly clear law;
even color blind people know, from the position of
the lights!

Compare this:

"Includes" and "including" shall not be construed
 to exclude other things otherwise within the 
 meaning of the term defined.   See IRC 7701(c).

Are you a thing?  :)  Am I a thing?  8-)  If you want
to start a very long-lasting debate, ask your friends
and relatives the meaning of this latter "definition."
Get ready for lots of long wind.

/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://supremelaw.com


At 01:37 AM 10/6/97 +0000, you wrote:
>Paul,
>
>Everywhere else in Title 26, it means "Title 26", as far as I can 
>tell.  Within any "title" or "section" or "chapter" or "subchapter" 
>when those terms are used, logic would dictate that they refer to 
>themselves when "Within this" precedes the term.
>
>Is that what you were thinking, too?
>
>Harold
>
>> Date:          Sun, 05 Oct 1997 15:39:08 -0700
>> To:            "Harold Thomas" <harold@halcyon.com>
>> From:          Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
>> Subject:       Is the IRC plain English?
>
>> So, then, what is meant by the term "this title",
>> in your opinion (humble or not)?  :)
>> 
>> /s/ Paul Mitchell
>> http://supremelaw.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> At 01:25 PM 10/5/97 +0000, you wrote:
>> >Paul,
>> >
>> >It's already in plain English.  It is impossible to make it more 
>> >clear. One can only expand it into redundancy!
>> >
>> >Harold
>> >
>> >> Date:          Sun, 05 Oct 1997 07:21:59 -0700
>> >> To:            (Recipient list suppressed)
>> >> From:          Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
>> >> Subject:       Is the IRC plain English?
>> >
>> >> Dear Friend,
>> >> 
>> >> I would like you to tell me what you think
>> >> the following statute says, in plain English:
>> >> 
>> >> "The provisions of subtitle F shall take effect
>> >>  on the day after the date of enactment of this title ...."
>> >> 
>> >> I am particularly interested in hearing your opinion
>> >> as to the meaning of the term "this title", with
>> >> supporting authority and citations, if possible.
>> >> 
>> >> Thanks!  I am doing this experiment with a 
>> >> number of separate individuals, and would
>> >> like your permission in advance to publish
>> >> your answer in a compendium of the most
>> >> exemplary answers.
>> >> 
>> >> /s/ Paul Mitchell
>> >> http://supremelaw.com
>> >> 
>> >> copy:  Supreme Law School

      

Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail