Re: Mr. Macdonald your "support your position using solely the IRCargument" is done.

Arthur L. Rubin wrote:

> Dale Eastman wrote:
>
>
> > Richard Macdonald wrote:
> >
> >
> > > So show where the Secretary is allowed to exceed this mandate from Congress.
> >
> > Not my problem. As I just showed you, jeopardy only attaches for failure
> > to follow the "rules" not the statutes. Now, Mr. Macdonald, read the
> > rules, or pay up like Malloy says.
>
>
> Ping.  Error 404 (argument not found).

...the Act's civil and criminal penalties attach only upon violation of 
the regulation promulgated by the Secretary; if the Secretary were to do 
nothing, the Act itself would impose no penalties on anyone...

The Government urges that since only those who violate these regulations 
[not the Code] may incur civil or criminal penalties, it is the actual 
regulations issued by the Secretary of the Treasury, and not the broad 
authorizing language of the statute, which are to be tested against the 
standards of the Fourth Amendment; and that when so tested they are 
valid."  Calif. Bankers Assoc. v. Shultz,  416 U.S. 25, 44, 39 L.Ed. 2d 
812, 94 S.Ct 1494.

Above cites from:
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=416&page=25>

Entire clip found at:
http://familyguardian.tzo.com/disclaimer.htm