:h: Welcome
to Team Law’s Forum!

Please note:
Pastor Butch Paugh, of: GNC Radio Network’s: “Call to Decision” radio show, will interview: Eric W. Madsen, Team Law’s Trustee, this:
Saturday, July. 8, 2017, at: 6:00 PM (MT).
Call In Line: (855) 242-8824,
Listen Line: (605)562-4040.

Our new Free Conference Call schedule is every: Monday, Wednesday & Friday morning from:
8:00 – 9:00 AM (Mountain Time).

Call: (857) 232-0158; use the Conference Access Code: 110045.

Though our Trustee is otherwise out of the office this week (July 10, 2017 – July 14, 2017), our Trustee will continue to hold Conference calls
at their regularly scheduled times; with one exception: there will be no conference call Monday, July 17, 2017.

Join us on, and invite your friends to, our next Conference Call!

Use this Forum to contact Team Law;
use this link for more: contact information.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:

The definition of "United States"?

This forum is for topics not listed below.

Moderators: Tnias, Jus

Reepotomac
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 10
Joined: Sunday January 3rd, 2010 8:46 am MST

The definition of "United States"?

Postby Reepotomac » Saturday April 3rd, 2010 7:38 am MDT

Here's how they define "state"- (23) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means the 50 States and the District of Columbia.- To me, this means they are trying to pass this under actual government authority and not District of Columbia Corporate United States authority. Under IRS and Social Security laws, "state" is not defined like this.
Does that statemant make any sense? Or can i word it more precisely?

User avatar
SimplyThinkDreams
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 110
Joined: Thursday February 5th, 2009 4:45 pm MST

Re: The definition of "United States"?

Postby SimplyThinkDreams » Saturday April 3rd, 2010 5:27 pm MDT

Reepotomac,
What you allege is impossible. In order for legislation to be passed under original jurisdiciton authority it would be necessary for the original jurisdiction government be seated. Currently most of the original jurisdiciton government offices are vacant. Even so, neither the original jurisdiction nor the Corp. U.S. legislature has the power to pass legislation that is contrary to Constitution for the United States of America. If such legislation is passed, it is void and cannot be compelled upon the people.

Reepotomac
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 10
Joined: Sunday January 3rd, 2010 8:46 am MST

Re: The definition of "United States"?

Postby Reepotomac » Saturday April 3rd, 2010 6:42 pm MDT

Why do the IRS and Social Security laws define states as "...includes the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin islands…etc." and other sections of law define state as "…means the fifty states and the District of Columbia." To my incomplete understanding, that is one of the signs that something is fishy. Knowing the reason for that difference would lead to understanding alot of other things.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1573
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: The definition of "United States"?

Postby Admin » Sunday April 4th, 2010 10:37 am MDT

:h: Reepotomac:
We suggest you might want to read the The Cardinal Rule of Definitions. It should help you understand such statutory definitions are only definitive, and only have effect, within the statue wherein they are defined. Thus, it is not reasonable to compare such definitions of words or phrases with their relative meanings either in common usage or in other statutory constructions; as you have.

As to the answer to your question regarding why Congress defines words in statutory constructions, the answer is simple: “Words and phrases are redefined to abbreviate the code and to simplify its construction by eliminating repetitious clauses that can be reduced to a single redefined common word or phrase.”

Of course, such constructions can make it look like a statute has application far beyond its actual affect; which affect can be used to synthetically expand the appearance of governmental authority. Such may be the case with definitions such as those you referred to regarding the IRS and Social Security.

Accordingly, we again refer you to the The Cardinal Rule of Definitions.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.

Reepotomac
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 10
Joined: Sunday January 3rd, 2010 8:46 am MST

Re: The definition of "United States"?

Postby Reepotomac » Sunday April 4th, 2010 11:15 am MDT

I'm going to have to agree with everything you said, but I suspect that reply was a boilerplate cut and paste affair. I certainly understand that, because you get alot of questions.
In Social Security and IRS laws, state is defined one way- "..includes The District of Columbia, Guam, Virgin islands, etc. etc." The fifty states are never specifically mentioned in any IRS definition of "state" that I have ever seen. I even researched Alaska and Hawaii. In Title 26 USC, "state" included the Territory of Alaska and the Territory of Hawaii, until they became states in 1959, at which time the IRS definition of state no longer included those territories.
In other laws state is defined as "....means the fifty states and the District of Columbia."
People wrote those words and those different definitions for a reason. I think that reason is a key item of understanding.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1573
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: The definition of "United States"?

Postby Admin » Sunday April 4th, 2010 2:28 pm MDT

:h: Reepotomac:
Guess again. We do not know where you got the idea of “boilerplate” from our response. The response we last wrote to you was typed out word for word in direct response to your inquiry. Perhaps we wasted our time in so doing because, you appear to have missed our point entirely.

After we made that response, in accord with the The Cardinal Rule of Definitions, and noted that statutory definitions only apply to the specific statute wherein they are defined; and, therefore, such statutory definitions have no comparative relation to any other statutory definition or other application of the words so defined (regardless of their similarity or lack of the same with any other statute or usage). Again, statutory definitions do not define words or phrases for common usage; rather, they merely define the words as shorthand that applies only to the code wherein they were defined.

In other words, the only way to understand the statute is to replace the words so defined by their statutory definition. Thus, when the words “United States” are statutorily redefined as: “The District of Columbia, Guam, Virgin islands”, then when that statute uses the words, “United States”, that usage only applies to: “The District of Columbia, Guam, Virgin islands”. However, when the words “United States” are statutorily redefined as: “including The District of Columbia, Puerto Rica, Guam, Virgin islands, etc.”; and another applicable statutory definition in that code defines the use of “including” as “not limited to but in addition to” (like the tax code defines that usage) then those statutory definitions must be combined to mean the common usage of the term “United States”, plus: “The District of Columbia, Puerto Rica, Guam, Virgin islands, etc.” Of course, those translations of the code only apply to the code’s usage of the term so defined; and then, only where the words “United States” are specifically used, as statutorily defined.

Still, those respective differences cannot be compared to derive any other referential meaning from those respective definitions other than that they exist. As exemplified in The Cardinal Rule of Definitions, statutory construction requires that such definitions only apply to the statute wherein they are so defined.

Thus, your attempt to make something of such definitions as if they compare to definitions in other statutes only places you as willing prey to destructive mythological beliefs. Thus, your expressed opinion stands contrary to the facts and leaves you prey to misunderstandings that will inevitably lead you away from the truth. The path to the truth regarding the law, its history and all respective relationships is the Standard for Review.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.


Return to “Miscellaneous Topics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests