Posted on 10/23/2013 4:56:24 PM PDT by dontreadthis
Why do I believe this?
Well, one reason would be that in order to believe anything else, it would basically necessitate espousing some sort of conspiratorial scenario in which Justice Roberts willingly engaged in Treason (which is exactly what it would be. Let's not mince words.)
Either that , or he's just a f-----g moron.
It seems the possibilities are limited:
In fact, I expect the Roberts decision to be reversed some day if the enforcement is attempted along the Tyrannical lines we can all easily imagine.
Tortured, laborious spinning on the head of a pin. Roberts, quite simply was compromised, and this nightmare of a decision the result of his trying to do right under duress. Splitting the difference as it were, to stay out of the thug’s reach. Esoterica.
Simple fact is political will and power to stop this comes from the de-funding. Many extinct bills still on the books, that are not funded.
Civil disobedience backed by the simple fact that millions cannot afford this nightmare, will be hard to stop. So doing then the masses can test your 95% concept and the presumed corporation. The lack of enforcement is certainly helpful, ignoring the “penalty” or fine.
Prohibition was an Amendment, and look how it was ignored. This is just some pipe dream venture socialist law— that will also be ignored. Starting with physicians.
It all boils down to - what do we do other than complain about Justice Roberts and threaten to not pay any penalties?
I HIGHLY suggest you DO NOT sign up for Obamacare until you read this CAREFULLY. Chief Justice Roberts carefully worded his ruling and left out any requirement to participate for 95% of Americans.
#14 reads: This article is from the NESARA website, which should be a red flag that it’s likely to be nonsense. And, having now read it, I can tell you as a lawyer that it IS nonsense; it’s full of usual Tax Protester arguments about how only corporations have to pay income taxes, yadda yadda.
Then you are "concurring" with blatant error and vaguery. And as far as it being from a "law professional," THAT wouldn't surprise me a bit.
First of all, "this article" IS NOT "from the NESARA website." It is, rather, from Free Republic, posted by myself on July 7, 2012 and to which I give a direct link on this page at post #20. NESARA reprinted it without identifying its source.
Secondly, your "law professional" merely slanders with a "tax protester" label, and avoids all specifics, a legal analysis based on the actual words of the actual Roberts ruling. So, unless this "professional" can scrounge up some sort of quote from my analysis that is divorced from Roberts actual words, he's merely slandering me. And if there's something in particular about Robert's ruling he finds "tax protesterish," I suggest he write a letter to the IRS and turn in the Chief Justice himself.
Unless, of course, you would like to explain some details of your own specific analysis of the work, and provide a detailed rebuttal.
No? What a surprise.
What you call esoterica, is how the law works. It's based on definitions - very, very careful definitions. And that's not a bad thing in itself. It's just often misused.
A free people, by definition, have an almost unlimited right to free contract. The right to make contracts with each other is, in a very fundamental sense, freedom itself. Therefore understanding the law regrading contracts, to a certain extent, is a responsibility of every adult.
The abuse of that contractual process, that contractual law, by presuming contracts on people and then acting as if they accept them if they don't recognize the presumption, is the problem. But what do you suggest is the solution, other than people educating themselves? Fraud will always exist, coercion will always exist. Contract law goes back over a thousand years and it is tested against every possible stress. What would you replace it with?
People argue, people cheat, people lie. There has to be a way to tie them down to specifics. That's what contract law does. If people don't learn at least the basics of it, who's fault is it when they are fooled and cheated?
Let me tell you something, my FRiend. There is a very, very good reason that the Left is made up of lawyers. Because this is how they fool people, by writing laws that they know people won't bother reading or understanding.
If people rolled up their sleaves and took a few basic law classess, and spent even a tenth of the amount of time they do prepping or at gun ranges, there would be no need to prep, and the need for guns would drop to a fraction of what they are now. We Americans have inherited an incredibly precious legal system. It is the work of genius, that many have died to protect. Not to learn it, not to study and understand it, is a betrayal of our heritage.
And it is the main weakness that those who want to get rid of the freedoms that we have inherited, are exploiting so successfully.
People have to fight the problem where it actually is - not where they want it to be.
Clarification: I meant that "not to learn it, not to study and understand it" is the main weakness that those who want to get rid of the freedoms that we have inherited, are exploiting so successfully.
and your IQ is oh so high.....seems to me that IF the court backs your theory then you might have some credibility....not before
Vast number of examples of the “contracts” with the People, from the Left and the Right— which have been repeatedly broken.
This law as written is to be ignored, and hell to pay. There was nothing for example at all “legal” about the American Revolution— rule of law being the first thing to go. Understand your passion for the order of things— but we have gone well past the “i’m gonna sue” to stop this. Which was the point.
The tipping point is being reached. Let’s hope the power vacuum is not filled by totalitarians of either “Party”, but by Constitutionalists who can quickly reverse many things.
Amongst the so called low information i-pod, iphone morons of tvland.... too true, who think the tv is the law and the owners of their minds. When the power is shut off, a rather different outcome.
The individual mandate goes away and this does,too. You must understand that Roberts was blackmailed— hence the pitching at windmills (to be blunt, in fear of chi-town thuggery that threatened his very family— such are these marxists). This disgusting threatening of our highest judge is pure marxist/leninist/stalinist. Which is WHO they are!
One reference... look up Kaminev and Zinoviev (both lawyers) and how the sickest of all “marxists” dealt with them. With the fools still believing in their legality.
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamenev#Submission_to_Stalin_and_death
You quote Roberts correctly, but the rest of what you say about the income tax laws is hogwash. You argue that Roberts meant the exact opposite of what he says, and you do so by using arguments which have landed tax protestors in jail many times.
Unless, of course, you would like to explain some details of your own specific analysis of the work, and provide a detailed rebuttal.
Rebutting all of the nonsense in this article would take days, so I'll just pick one of the more egregious misstatements:
You say: "It means that the definition of "person" the government can punish for tax violations, is NOT the same definition of "person" that is used in the rest of Title 26. More specifically, it means that the only "persons" the government can impose tax violation enforcements against, are officers or employees of a corporation, who have a duty to act in some way regarding tax laws on behalf of their corporation, and who violate those tax laws on behalf of the corporation they officially represent. Do you represent a corporation in an official capacity to the government, on behalf of that corporation's tax obligations? If not, then you are not a §§ 6671 (b), 7343 and 6332 (f) "person" who can be liable for violating the tax enforcement laws."
The statute you are quoting says that, for purposes of criminal enforcement, the term "person" includes an officer of a corporation. "Includes" doesn't mean "is limited to." In fact, section 7701(c) of the Internal Revenue Code says that "[t]he terms 'includes' and 'including' when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined" [emphasis added]. So saying that, for purposes of criminal enforcement, the term "person" "includes" an officer of a corporation means that the term "person" also still includes anything else within the usual meaning of "person."
Many tax protestors have argued that they could not be criminally prosecuted for tax evasion because they were not an officer of a corporation. They all lost. See, e.g.,United States v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747, 749-750 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Rice, 659 F.2d 524, 528 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Hendrickson, 664 F.Supp.2d 793 (E.D. Mich. 2009).
There are several dozen more things wrong with the article, but I'll leave this for now.
I rebutted one portion of your analysis in post #51. Would you like to respond?
No? What a surprise.
You wrote:
The statute you are quoting says that, for purposes of criminal enforcement, the term "person" includes an officer of a corporation. "Includes" doesn't mean "is limited to." In fact, section 7701(c) of the Internal Revenue Code says that "[t]he terms 'includes' and 'including' when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined" [emphasis added]. So saying that, for purposes of criminal enforcement, the term "person" "includes" an officer of a corporation means that the term "person" also still includes anything else within the usual meaning of "person."
This will be quick, because your "rebuttal" is based on such a fundamental level of ignorance. First of all, you are very deceitful by underlining the very negation of your argument. In the analysis. I quoted the specific exclusionary statutes of the IRC that apply to the assessment and collection powers. They are, if you would care to notice, more specific than the general definition you quoted.
In law, when something is made different, that counts. It means that the general definition is not applicable, and a specific definition replaces it. Because you can't have two different definitions (including listed descriptions). So what I pointed out is that the IRC itself invokes a more limited applicatory list for those specific powers - that holds over the general list. In fact, that's the reason it exists, to hold over the general list.
Also, despite what you think the IRC "says," it is subject to the rules of construction that address all statutory law. In those rules, there is a concept called "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius" - when one or more things of a class are expressly mentioned others of the same class are excluded.
Many, many statutes in federal and all state laws, as well as numerous court decisions, invoke this principle. It is a mandatory principles because otherwise there is no way to determine between alternate definitions.
Which means that IF it is EVER to be used in an illustrative way, rather than an exclusionary way, that too must be directly indicated. And even if it is indicated, it would not be uswd in an authorization statute for two very good reasons - first, it would not be an authorizational use of the term per se; and second, because it would serve to contradict its purported authority by comparison with another definition.
So your argument has no intrinsic merit, even before it is applied to the subject matter, because you don't even grasp the fundamental principles involved. In fact, your lack of knowledge has generated the very misunderstanding the government tries to evoke in how they write laws so people will presume meanings that aren't there. You are a perfect example of why lawyers get away with fooling people - you don't know the law, you don't understand construction, and you spread false understanding instead of actually learning something.
And your attitude doesn't help you, either.
But hey, I suggest you trust your own knowledge and expertise, and sign up for Obamacare immediately. In fact, I can't think of a more perfect payment you should receive for your legal efforts.
Yeah...a slick attempt at covering Roberts ass. Hecisca brain washed traitor.
So all those people who made the same argument you did, and whose cases I cited, aren’t really in jail?
Again, you replace facts with innuendo, attitude and contempt. First of all, you haven't cited anyone who is "in jail" from those cases you cited. Second of all, you haven't shown where those cases invoked the specific arguments and IRC statutes I did in the analysis? Let me remind you of what they are:
1) An officer or employee of a listed type of corporation; AND 2) Under a duty to perform an act; AND 3) In respect of said act, a violation occurs.
So what does this difference in the definitions of the term "person" mean? It means that the definition of "person" the government can punish for tax violations, is NOT the same definition of "person" that is used in the rest of Title 26.
More specifically, it means that the only "persons" the government can impose tax violation enforcements against, are officers or employees of a corporation, who have a duty to act in some way regarding tax laws on behalf of their corporation, and who violate those tax laws on behalf of the corporation they officially represent.
Do you represent a corporation in an official capacity to the government, on behalf of that corporation's tax obligations? If not, then you are not a §§ 6671 (b), 7343 and 6332 (f) "person" who can be liable for violating the tax enforcement laws.
SO, once again, are the cases you cited ones that invoke the definitions found in §§ 6671 (b), 7343 and 6332 (f)? And if they are not (and I know they are not), then why are you citing those cases, when they have nothing to do with my argument? Are you TRYING to misrepresent things?
Even apart from comparison clauses in the IRC, your interpretive "logic" is irrational. You wrote before:
In fact, section 7701(c) of the Internal Revenue Code says that "[t]he terms 'includes' and 'including' when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined" [emphasis added]. So saying that, for purposes of criminal enforcement, the term "person" "includes" an officer of a corporation means that the term "person" also still includes anything else within the usual meaning of "person."
You translate "shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined" as meaning "the term 'person' also still includes anything else within the usual meaning of "person."
LOL, and what, pray tell, is "the usual meaning of 'person'" when that "usual meaning" is "not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined"?
Again, you're fooled by the "not be deemed to exclude other things" part, and in doing so, miss the qualifier: "otherwise within the meaning of the term defined."
WITHIN THE MEANING, got that part?
So if there is, for example a "person" with no corporate responsibilities, and a "person" WITH corporate responsibilities, and the IRC says that corporations and persons are liable, then WHICH "person" is WITHIN THE MEANING "otherwise" of the "term defined"?
Well, the person WITH corporate liabilities is WITHIN THE MEANING of the "corporation" with similar liabilities. And, the non-corporate person is WITHOUT the meaning, i.e. outside of the meaning, that pertains to liabilities.
And that's just the definition of terms. Then you have to ad the comparison lists, and the fact that at three different places, §§ 6671 (b), 7343 and 6332 (f), the IRC specifically and identically REPLACES, for specific and declared purposes, its general definition that you found at Section 7701(c).
So if you're asking me why people might lose in Court because they accept the Section 7701(c) definition that seems to include them, and don't invoke the §§ 6671 (b), 7343 and 6332 (f) definitions that specifically exclude them, I'd say it's for two reasons. The first is that no, the US Attorney is not going to show them the way out. And the second is that they had someone like you for their lawyer.
Only because you didn't read the cases I cited. The defendants made exactly the argument you did, citing the statute you cited, and the courts nonetheless affirmed their convictions--and their prison sentences.
In United States v. Rice, 659 F.2d 524, 528 (5th Cir. 1981), the defendant challenged his conviction for willfully failing to file an income tax return, arguing that he was not a “person” who could be convicted of tax crimes under section 7343 because he wasn't an officer of a corporation. The Fifth Circuit rejected this argument as a “nigh frivolous non-sequitur,” explaining that section 7343 “obviously” was “not intended to exclude individual[s] or to limit the ordinary meaning of the term `person’ so as to exclude individuals or `natural persons,’ in counsel’s phrase, from their responsibility to comply with the tax laws.” (Emphasis in original.)
In United States v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747, 749-750 (7th Cir. 1985), the Seventh Circuit affirmed that the district court correctly refused to instruct the jury that section 7343 did not include “natural persons”; the Court of Appeals described the proposed instruction as “inane,” and held that the word “includes” as used in section 7343 “is a term of enlargement not of limitation, and the reference to certain entities or categories is not intended to exclude all others.” (Emphasis added).
Section 7343 specifically lists corporate officers because otherwise there would be a loophole in the criminal enforcement provisions of the tax laws: if Joe Blow signed a false tax return as President of XYZ Corp., he wasn't evading his own taxes, and could have argued that only the corporation could be prosecuted. Hence the need for the "includes" clause in 7343-- as a term of enlargement, not limitation.
But perhaps you can show me one case in the history of the federal income tax that ever accepted your argument?
The statutes I cited were, and are, §§ 6671 (b), 7343 and 6332 (f).
Your "cases" do not cite these statutes.
YOU do not cite these statutes.
Therefore your argument is bogus, because the statutes I cite ARE the clarification and application statutes over § 7343. That's why your cases go on and on about "meaning" - without the clarification statutes §§ 6671 (b), 7343 and 6332 (f), there's nothing to stop such blathering.
That's why §§ 6671 (b), 7343 and 6332 (f) EXIST. To be used AGAINST the general application of § 7343.
Show me a case where that was done.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.