|
|
| Author |
Message |
TaxDefier
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 7:40 am Post subject: Re: Was: Re: Sub Chap. S |
 |
|
Corrected typo:
At issue, is the starting point to be used in determining the meaning of
this statute; Determining the meaning of this statute means to determine
who chapter 75 applies to:
Sec. 7343. Definition of term "person"
-STATUTE-
The term "PERSON" as used in this chapter
includes an officer or employee of a corporation,
or a member or employee of a partnership,
who as such officer, employee, or member
is under a duty to perform the act in respect
of which the violation occurs.
Please note the UPPERCASE / lowercase distinction between "PERSON" as
defined in the Statutory definition of 7343 and "person" as defined by a
dictionary.
A PERSON defined by statute (Statutory "PERSON") is NOT the same as a
"person" defined by a dictionary (Dictionary "person").
The expert I am replying to does not agree. The expert I am replying to
has previously, succinctly, stated what he does believe:
7701(c) is real simple. Take whatever
is in the definition in Websters and
Blacks, and then add to that definition
whatever is listed after the word
include(s/ing). So if you qualify under
the DICTIONARY definition, you are one.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/213a668f86110bfd
As succinctly stated by our expert:
So if you qualify under the DICTIONARY
definition [of person], you are one.
My dictionary defines a person as "A human being or an organization with
legal rights and duties."
The following are persons with legal rights and duties:
An officer of a corporation;
An employee of a corporation;
A member of a partnership;
An employee of a partnership.
They "qualify under the DICTIONARY definition".
Since an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee
of a partnership are already within the dictionary definition of
"person", there is no purpose for the statute.
Either:
One starts with the dictionary definition of "person" as asserted by our
expert, and there is no purpose for the statute.
Or:
One does not start with the dictionary definition of "person" as
asserted by our expert, and the statute performs another function.
What does our expert say in regard to the above logic?
Richard Macdonald wrote:
| Quote: |
So with all of your drivel, per 26 USC 7701, is Nebraska a State?
Yes or No?
|
Why does our expert ask this question?
The above logic is understandable to anyone who reads it. Our expert
wants to post a citation of a judge decreeing that the above logic is wrong.
I think you, the silent reader, are smart enough to see that the above
logic is correct and that you are smart enough to see that any judge who
rules otherwise is as full of s**t as any judge who rules 2+2=5.
As I replied to our expert earlier:
If a judge decrees 2 + 2 = 5, and you are adding a $222 deposit to the
$222 already in the account, are you going to make this ledger entry:
$222 + $222 = $555
Now you go ahead and post your case where the judge decrees $222 + $222
= $555 and ignores the rules of statutory construction and the logic as
presented in my original post:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/a4d6c4184fb41ada
And as presented in my clarification post:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/60723dcffd05160f |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Richard Macdonald
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 4:13 pm Post subject: Re: Was: Re: Sub Chap. S |
|
|
"TaxDefier" <TaxDefier@no.info> wrote in message
news:3eqdndJDpJHey6HVnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
| Quote: |
Richard Macdonald wrote:
"TaxDefier" <TaxDefier@no.info> wrote in message
news:i4mdncUUJ_NwHqzVnZ2dnUVZ_qvinZ2d@earthlink.com...
Richard Macdonald wrote:
Evasive non-answers are a sure sign of an inability
to answer without destroying previous assertions.
An assertion without proof may be refuted without proof. You are wrong.
BTW, Nebraska IS a State per 26 USC 7701.
An assertion without proof may be refuted without proof. You are wrong.
Then you believe that Nebraska in NOT a State?
I already told you:
If a judge decrees 2 + 2 = 5, and you
are adding a $222 deposit to the $222
already in the account, are you going
to make this ledger entry:
$222 + $222 = $555
Now you go ahead and post your case where
the judge decrees $222 + $222 = $555 and
ignores the rules of statutory construction
and the logic as presented in my original post.
|
Your evasion is noted, again.
Per 26 USC 7701, is Nebraska a State?, Yes or No?
--
Richard A. Macdonald, CPA/EA
John A. Bozza, CPA, PA
2531 Landmark Dr., Ste 203
Clearwater, FL 33761
Phn: (727) 726-7577
Fax: (727) 726-7707 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Richard Macdonald
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 4:17 pm Post subject: Re: Was: Re: Sub Chap. S |
|
|
"TaxDefier" <TaxDefier@no.info> wrote in message
news:3eqdnc1DpJFWy6HVnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
| Quote: |
Richard Macdonald wrote:
"TaxDefier" <TaxDefier@no.info> wrote in message
news:i4mdncUUJ_NwHqzVnZ2dnUVZ_qvinZ2d@earthlink.com...
Richard Macdonald wrote:
Evasive non-answers are a sure sign of an inability
to answer without destroying previous assertions.
An assertion without proof may be refuted without proof. You are wrong.
BTW, Nebraska IS a State per 26 USC 7701.
An assertion without proof may be refuted without proof. You are wrong.
Then you assert totally without proof that the State of Nebraska (see
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEBRASKA of 1875) is
not a State.
I already told you:
If a judge decrees 2 + 2 = 5, and you
are adding a $222 deposit to the $222
already in the account, are you going
to make this ledger entry:
$222 + $222 = $555
Now you go ahead and post your case where
the judge decrees $222 + $222 = $555 and
ignores the rules of statutory construction
and the logic as presented in my original post.
|
Why are you so afraid of answering such a simple question,
it must totally destroy your assertions to make such an
answer for you to be so evasive.
Again, per 26 USC 7701, is Nebraska a State, Yes or No? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Paul Thomas, CPA
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 4:58 pm Post subject: Re: Was: Re: Sub Chap. S |
|
|
Dale "the moron" Eastman wrote
| Quote: |
At issue, is the starting point to be used in
determining the meaning of this statute;
|
The starting point is always the statute.
If you have problems understanding or comprehending the written words, look
to the definitions within the statute, then if you are having chronic
difficulties understanding what a commonly used word means, like "includes",
then go to the dictionary.
While some words in the statutes are found in the definitions section of the
statutes, which definitions are always an expansion of the common dictionary
meaning, most carry their common dictionary usage without statutory
expansion given the context of the sentence in which you find it.
Dale, your 5th grade english teacher is looking to find you so they can
whoop your ass.
--
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
----------------
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Paul Thomas, CPA
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 4:59 pm Post subject: Re: Was: Re: Sub Chap. S |
|
|
Dale "typo" Eastman wrote
Your whole life is a typo.
Break out the white-out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
TaxDefier
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 6:16 pm Post subject: Re: Was: Re: Sub Chap. S |
|
|
At issue, is the starting point to be used in determining the meaning of
this statute; Determining the meaning of this statute means to determine
who chapter 75 applies to:
Sec. 7343. Definition of term "person"
-STATUTE-
The term "PERSON" as used in this chapter
includes an officer or employee of a corporation,
or a member or employee of a partnership,
who as such officer, employee, or member
is under a duty to perform the act in respect
of which the violation occurs.
Please note the UPPERCASE / lowercase distinction between "PERSON" as
defined in the Statutory definition of 7343 and "person" as defined by a
dictionary.
A PERSON defined by statute (Statutory "PERSON") is NOT the same as a
"person" defined by a dictionary (Dictionary "person").
The expert I am replying to does not agree. The expert I am replying to
has previously, succinctly, stated what he does believe:
7701(c) is real simple. Take whatever
is in the definition in Websters and
Blacks, and then add to that definition
whatever is listed after the word
include(s/ing). So if you qualify under
the DICTIONARY definition, you are one.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/213a668f86110bfd
As succinctly stated by our expert:
So if you qualify under the DICTIONARY
definition [of person], you are one.
My dictionary defines a person as "A human being or an organization with
legal rights and duties."
The following are persons with legal rights and duties:
An officer of a corporation;
An employee of a corporation;
A member of a partnership;
An employee of a partnership.
They "qualify under the DICTIONARY definition".
Since an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee
of a partnership are already within the dictionary definition of
"person", there is no purpose for the statute.
Either:
One starts with the dictionary definition of "person" as asserted by our
expert, and there is no purpose for the statute.
Or:
One does not start with the dictionary definition of "person" as
asserted by our expert, and the statute performs another function.
What does our expert say in regard to the above logic?
Richard Macdonald wrote:
| Quote: |
Per 26 USC 7701, is Nebraska a State?, Yes or No?
|
Why does our expert ask this question?
The above logic is understandable to anyone who reads it. Our expert
wants to post a citation of a judge decreeing that the above logic is wrong.
I think you, the silent reader, are smart enough to see that the above
logic is correct and that you are smart enough to see that any judge who
rules otherwise is as full of s**t as any judge who rules 2+2=5.
As I replied to our expert earlier:
If a judge decrees 2 + 2 = 5, and you are adding a $222 deposit to the
$222 already in the account, are you going to make this ledger entry:
$222 + $222 = $555
Now you go ahead and post your case where the judge decrees $222 + $222
= $555 and ignores the rules of statutory construction and the logic as
presented in my original post:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/a4d6c4184fb41ada
And as presented in my clarification post:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/60723dcffd05160f |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
TaxDefier
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 6:19 pm Post subject: Re: Was: Re: Sub Chap. S |
|
|
At issue, is the starting point to be used in determining the meaning of
this statute; Determining the meaning of this statute means to determine
who chapter 75 applies to:
Sec. 7343. Definition of term "person"
-STATUTE-
The term "PERSON" as used in this chapter
includes an officer or employee of a corporation,
or a member or employee of a partnership,
who as such officer, employee, or member
is under a duty to perform the act in respect
of which the violation occurs.
Please note the UPPERCASE / lowercase distinction between "PERSON" as
defined in the Statutory definition of 7343 and "person" as defined by a
dictionary.
A PERSON defined by statute (Statutory "PERSON") is NOT the same as a
"person" defined by a dictionary (Dictionary "person").
The expert I am replying to does not agree. The expert I am replying to
has previously, succinctly, stated what he does believe:
7701(c) is real simple. Take whatever
is in the definition in Websters and
Blacks, and then add to that definition
whatever is listed after the word
include(s/ing). So if you qualify under
the DICTIONARY definition, you are one.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/213a668f86110bfd
As succinctly stated by our expert:
So if you qualify under the DICTIONARY
definition [of person], you are one.
My dictionary defines a person as "A human being or an organization with
legal rights and duties."
The following are persons with legal rights and duties:
An officer of a corporation;
An employee of a corporation;
A member of a partnership;
An employee of a partnership.
They "qualify under the DICTIONARY definition".
Since an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee
of a partnership are already within the dictionary definition of
"person", there is no purpose for the statute.
Either:
One starts with the dictionary definition of "person" as asserted by our
expert, and there is no purpose for the statute.
Or:
One does not start with the dictionary definition of "person" as
asserted by our expert, and the statute performs another function.
What does our expert say in regard to the above logic?
Richard Macdonald wrote:
| Quote: |
Again, per 26 USC 7701, is Nebraska a State, Yes or No?
|
Why does our expert ask this question?
The above logic is understandable to anyone who reads it. Our expert
wants to post a citation of a judge decreeing that the above logic is wrong.
I think you, the silent reader, are smart enough to see that the above
logic is correct and that you are smart enough to see that any judge who
rules otherwise is as full of s**t as any judge who rules 2+2=5.
As I replied to our expert earlier:
If a judge decrees 2 + 2 = 5, and you are adding a $222 deposit to the
$222 already in the account, are you going to make this ledger entry:
$222 + $222 = $555
Now you go ahead and post your case where the judge decrees $222 + $222
= $555 and ignores the rules of statutory construction and the logic as
presented in my original post:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/a4d6c4184fb41ada
And as presented in my clarification post:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/60723dcffd05160f |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
TaxDefier
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 6:50 pm Post subject: Re: Was: Re: Sub Chap. S |
|
|
Paul Thomas, CPA wrote:
| Quote: |
Dale "the moron" Eastman wrote
At issue, is the starting point to be used in
determining the meaning of this statute;
The starting point is always the statute.
If you have problems understanding or comprehending the written words, look
to the definitions within the statute, then if you are having chronic
difficulties understanding what a commonly used word means, like "includes",
then go to the dictionary.
While some words in the statutes are found in the definitions section of the
statutes, which definitions are always an expansion of the common dictionary
meaning, most carry their common dictionary usage without statutory
expansion given the context of the sentence in which you find it.
Dale, your 5th grade english teacher is looking to find you so they can
whoop your ass.
|
The reader should note that this expert has ignored what was in the post
he replied to. Typical for this expert's method of posting, he has
snipped all the context. He thinks you won't remember what was on the
post he replied to. Since he snipped the context of my post replying to
another expert, I can tailor the context of my current post to this
expert's words.
Our expert asserts:
While some words in the statutes are found
in the definitions section of the statutes,
which definitions are always an expansion
of the common dictionary meaning...
To paraphrase our expert's unsupported assertion, our expert is telling
us that the use of the word includes in a definition section is "always
an expansion of the common dictionary meaning". Section 7343 is very
instructive in testing our expert's unsupported assertion.
Sec. 7343. Definition of term "person"
-STATUTE-
The term "PERSON" as used in this chapter
includes an officer or employee of a corporation,
or a member or employee of a partnership,
who as such officer, employee, or member
is under a duty to perform the act in respect
of which the violation occurs.
So according to our expert's assertion, the above definition "are always
an expansion of the common dictionary meaning" of the term "PERSON".
So according to our expert's assertion, the inclusion of:
An officer of a corporation;
An employee of a corporation;
A member of a partnership;
An employee of a partnership;
"are always an expansion of the common dictionary meaning" of "person".
My dictionary defines a person as "A human being or an organization with
legal rights and duties."
An officer of a corporation - has legal rights and duties;
An employee of a corporation - has legal rights and duties;
A member of a partnership - has legal rights and duties;
An employee of a partnership - has legal rights and duties.
Therefore:
An officer of a corporation; An employee of a corporation; A member of a
partnership; An employee of a partnership; are all, already "within the
common dictionary meaning" of "person".
The result is a statute that basically says the term "person" includes a
person, a person, a person or a person. The expert wants to call this
"an expansion of the common dictionary meaning" of person. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Richard Macdonald
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 7:15 pm Post subject: Re: Was: Re: Sub Chap. S |
|
|
"TaxDefier" <TaxDefier@no.info> wrote in message
news:sLadnUQh7tAuxqDVnZ2dnUVZ_r3inZ2d@earthlink.com...
| Quote: |
At issue, is the starting point to be used in determining the meaning of
this statute; Determining the meaning of this statute means to determine
who chapter 75 applies to:
Sec. 7343. Definition of term "person"
-STATUTE-
The term "PERSON" as used in this chapter
includes an officer or employee of a corporation,
or a member or employee of a partnership,
who as such officer, employee, or member
is under a duty to perform the act in respect
of which the violation occurs.
Please note the UPPERCASE / lowercase distinction between "PERSON" as
defined in the Statutory definition of 7343 and "person" as defined by a
dictionary.
A PERSON defined by statute (Statutory "PERSON") is NOT the same as a
"person" defined by a dictionary (Dictionary "person").
The expert I am replying to does not agree. The expert I am replying to
has previously, succinctly, stated what he does believe:
7701(c) is real simple. Take whatever
is in the definition in Websters and
Blacks, and then add to that definition
whatever is listed after the word
include(s/ing). So if you qualify under
the DICTIONARY definition, you are one.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/213a668f86110bfd
As succinctly stated by our expert:
So if you qualify under the DICTIONARY
definition [of person], you are one.
My dictionary defines a person as "A human being or an organization with
legal rights and duties."
The following are persons with legal rights and duties:
An officer of a corporation;
An employee of a corporation;
A member of a partnership;
An employee of a partnership.
They "qualify under the DICTIONARY definition".
Since an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee
of a partnership are already within the dictionary definition of
"person", there is no purpose for the statute.
Either:
One starts with the dictionary definition of "person" as asserted by our
expert, and there is no purpose for the statute.
Or:
One does not start with the dictionary definition of "person" as
asserted by our expert, and the statute performs another function.
What does our expert say in regard to the above logic?
Richard Macdonald wrote:
Per 26 USC 7701, is Nebraska a State?, Yes or No?
Why does our expert ask this question?
The above logic is understandable to anyone who reads it. Our expert
wants to post a citation of a judge decreeing that the above logic is
wrong.
|
Of course, if the reader realizes that Nebraska really is a state,
they will also realize the total futility and worthlessness of the above
assertions.
| Quote: |
I think you, the silent reader, are smart enough to see that the above
logic is correct and that you are smart enough to see that any judge who
rules otherwise is as full of s**t as any judge who rules 2+2=5.
As I replied to our expert earlier:
If a judge decrees 2 + 2 = 5, and you are adding a $222 deposit to the
$222 already in the account, are you going to make this ledger entry:
$222 + $222 = $555
Now you go ahead and post your case where the judge decrees $222 + $222
= $555 and ignores the rules of statutory construction and the logic as
presented in my original post:
|
Which means that taxdefier believes that Nebraska is not a State. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Paul Thomas, CPA
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 7:55 pm Post subject: Re: Was: Re: Sub Chap. S |
|
|
Dale "the amateur" Eastman wrote
| Quote: |
The reader should note that this expert
|
Indeed. Keep pointing out that you're not an expert - except in slinging
pig shit.
Dale, go back to your former employer and get your old job back driving
trucks.
--
Two Reasons Why It's So Hard To Solve A Redneck Murder:
1. All the DNA is the same.
2. There are no dental records.
--------------------------
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Archmedes
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 8:26 pm Post subject: Re: Was: Re: Sub Chap. S |
|
|
"Paul Thomas, CPA" wrote:
| Quote: |
Dale, go back to your former employer and get your old job back
driving trucks.
|
As evidenced here, his "issues" with authority seem much, much too
severe for him to exist in an employer/employee relationship. In fact,
he probably couldn't exist in any industry that "regulated" him, like
the ICC. Yes, all the evidence he has supplied here over the years lead
to the obvious conclusion that his days of "real work" are over. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Richard Macdonald
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 8:37 pm Post subject: Re: Was: Re: Sub Chap. S |
|
|
"TaxDefier" <TaxDefier@no.info> wrote in message
news:sLadnUch7tD6waDVnZ2dnUVZ_r3inZ2d@earthlink.com...
| Quote: |
Richard Macdonald wrote:
Again, per 26 USC 7701, is Nebraska a State, Yes or No?
Why does our expert ask this question?
The above logic is understandable to anyone who reads it. Our expert
wants to post a citation of a judge decreeing that the above logic is
wrong.
I think you, the silent reader, are smart enough to see that the above
logic is correct and that you are smart enough to see that any judge who
rules otherwise is as full of s**t as any judge who rules 2+2=5.
As I replied to our expert earlier:
If a judge decrees 2 + 2 = 5, and you are adding a $222 deposit to the
$222 already in the account, are you going to make this ledger entry:
$222 + $222 = $555
Now you go ahead and post your case where the judge decrees $222 + $222
= $555 and ignores the rules of statutory construction and the logic as
presented in my original post:
|
And you notice that Dale studiously avoids admitting that Nebraska is
actually a State per 26 USC 7701, so if you think that Nebraska actually
is a State, then you will realize that Dale's entire argument is bogus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
nat
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 9:45 pm Post subject: Re: Was: Re: Sub Chap. S |
|
|
TaxDefier wrote:
| Quote: |
If a judge decrees 2 + 2 = 5, and you are adding a $222 deposit to the
$222 already in the account, are you going to make this ledger entry:
$222 + $222 = $555
|
A judge would never decree such a thing. It would be grounds for
impeachment.
However, if Congress defined 2 + 2 = 5, then the judge would be
obligated to uphold such a thing.
However, Congress would never define that 2 + 2 = 5 because such a thing
is TOO DAMN STUPID, like the poster TaxDefier the Idiot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
nat
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 9:48 pm Post subject: Re: Was: Re: Sub Chap. S |
|
|
TaxDefier wrote:
| Quote: |
Paul Thomas, CPA wrote:
Dale "the moron" Eastman wrote
At issue, is the starting point to be used in
determining the meaning of this statute;
The starting point is always the statute.
If you have problems understanding or comprehending the written words,
look to the definitions within the statute, then if you are having
chronic difficulties understanding what a commonly used word means,
like "includes", then go to the dictionary.
While some words in the statutes are found in the definitions section
of the statutes, which definitions are always an expansion of the
common dictionary meaning, most carry their common dictionary usage
without statutory expansion given the context of the sentence in which
you find it.
Dale, your 5th grade english teacher is looking to find you so they
can whoop your ass.
The reader should note that this expert has ignored what was in the post
he replied to. Typical for this expert's method of posting, he has
snipped all the context. He thinks you won't remember what was on the
post he replied to. Since he snipped the context
|
CONTEXT?
HAHAHAHA.
idiot, you know nothing about context...
| Quote: |
of my post replying to
another expert, I can tailor the context of my current post to this
expert's words.
Our expert asserts:
While some words in the statutes are found
in the definitions section of the statutes,
which definitions are always an expansion
of the common dictionary meaning...
To paraphrase our expert's unsupported assertion, our expert is telling
us that the use of the word includes in a definition section is "always
an expansion of the common dictionary meaning". Section 7343 is very
instructive in testing our expert's unsupported assertion.
Sec. 7343. Definition of term "person"
-STATUTE-
The term "PERSON" as used in this chapter
includes an officer or employee of a corporation,
or a member or employee of a partnership,
who as such officer, employee, or member
is under a duty to perform the act in respect
of which the violation occurs.
So according to our expert's assertion, the above definition "are always
an expansion of the common dictionary meaning" of the term "PERSON".
So according to our expert's assertion, the inclusion of:
An officer of a corporation;
An employee of a corporation;
A member of a partnership;
An employee of a partnership;
"are always an expansion of the common dictionary meaning" of "person".
My dictionary defines a person as "A human being or an organization with
legal rights and duties."
An officer of a corporation - has legal rights and duties;
An employee of a corporation - has legal rights and duties;
A member of a partnership - has legal rights and duties;
An employee of a partnership - has legal rights and duties.
Therefore:
An officer of a corporation; An employee of a corporation; A member of a
partnership; An employee of a partnership; are all, already "within the
common dictionary meaning" of "person".
The result is a statute that basically says the term "person" includes a
person, a person, a person or a person. The expert wants to call this
"an expansion of the common dictionary meaning" of person.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
nat
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 10:03 pm Post subject: Re: Was: Re: Sub Chap. S |
|
|
TaxDefier wrote:
| Quote: |
nat wrote:
JackneySneeb@gmail.com wrote:
On May 8, 5:55 pm, "P. Maffia" <pmaf...@centurytel.net> wrote:
Idiot, the law specifically states (to paraphrase at a level that
even a moron like you might understand) that the term "includes"
does not exclude anything which falls within its normal
definition. IN OTHER WORDS when used in the law "includes"
EXPANDS the normal definition and does not limit the definition
to the listed items.
There is an old principle of law, expressed in Latin as “inclusio
unius est exclusio alterius,” which dictates that where the law
specifically lists matters to which it applies, an “irrefutable
inference” must be drawn that what was not listed was intended to
be omitted. "Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius" holds that "to
express or include one thing implies the exclusion of another, or
of the alternative." ~Black's Law Dictionary 602 (7th ed. 1999)
--Jackney Sneeb
You are correct (though you probably don't know it).
If Term A includes B, you can't add things like C, D, or F.
7701 says, if Term A includes B, then you don't exclude things
otherwise within the meaning of A. In other words, Term A = A + B.
This statement contains errors of omission:
"In other words, Term A = A + B."
The "A" to the left of the equal sign is *_THE_* STATUTORY DEFINITION of
"A". I will address that "A" as "Statutory A".
The "A" to the right of the equal sign is the "meaning of A". This
"meaning of A" IS the determining factor as to which things are not to
be excluded because they are "otherwise within the meaning of A". I
will call this "Meaning of A" just that.
Correcting our expert's errors of omission:
Term "Statutory A" = "Meaning of A" + B.
Notice:
Term "Statutory A" = "Meaning of A"
|
Huh? What happened to "+ B"?
| Quote: |
Without knowledge of the "Meaning of A", you can NOT know what is
"otherwise within the meaning" of A.
|
Ah, the gist of the entire problem.
7701 says A = A.
If Congress does not specifically give a meaning to A, then the only
option is to use the ordinary meaning of everyday languange which can be
found in any dictionary.
The TaxDefying Idiot wants to make believe that A means something beyond
the limits of reason. He/she/it make believes that A does not = A.
That is just too stupid and needs no further explanation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages | 
FAQ 
Search 
Memberlist 
Usergroups 
Log in
Register
