Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius ^ | 6.28.12 | I.M. Citizen

Posted on 06/28/2012 1:43:28 PM PDT by Whenifhow

click here to read article

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-122 next last
To: pabianice

Well the local news at least in Houston is already beating the drum about Texas being behind the eight ball. Apparently we have a gazillions poor people who won’t have insurance because we filed a lawsuit against the government instead of taking the “free money” or setting up a state wide exchange. Numerous placards saying 25% of our citizens aren’t insured, even more than the total population of Missouri.

Austin not in session for several months so we’ll see how it all shakes out. Just wish they would all leave us alone.

101 posted on 06/28/2012 4:37:54 PM PDT by Grams A (The Sun will rise in the East in the morning and God is still on his throne.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Smokeyblue

ROBERTS, YOU MAGNIFICENT BASTARD...I don’t know if it’s true or not, but I just wanted to be the first to say it if turns out so.

102 posted on 06/28/2012 4:39:32 PM PDT by Ronald_Magnus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: I still care
Obama is now responsible for the largest tax on the middle class in history”. Everyone knows it is death to the economy, to the budget. Last night Frank Luntz had on a whole bunch of Obama voters who hated this law.

Me thinks Obama was hoping the court was negate it

WE are broke and the economy is in the toliet

There ain't no $$$$ for this monstrosity and the Dems know it

Of course the STUPID Party will probably screw up the elections
103 posted on 06/28/2012 4:45:45 PM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Ronald_Magnus

“I don’t know if it’s true or not”

It’s not.

104 posted on 06/28/2012 4:46:10 PM PDT by Smokeyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow


It’s ‘Robertscare’ now. He bought it. He owns it.

105 posted on 06/28/2012 4:52:45 PM PDT by citizen (Obomo blames:Arab Spring,Banks,Big Oil,Bush,Ceos,Coal,Euro Zone,FNC,Jpn Tsunami,T Party,Wall St,You)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead
I don't think Roberts acted honorably. I think instead of concentrating only on the constitutionality, he considered the historical political consequences of tossing the whole law, and went french in the face of battle.

He f@cked us over, sorry about the language. There is no way to put a positive spin on it. Not only did he uphold it, but he created a way to make it legal. He acted as an attorney for the Obama administration. If he was being intimidated into ruling this way, he should have done the honorable thing and stepped down.

106 posted on 06/28/2012 4:57:12 PM PDT by Hacksaw (If I had a son, he'd look like George Zimmerman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Smokeyblue

The good side is that obama can not use this as an issue going forward. He won! He’ll have to defend all the rest of his record now. It’s not as bad as some think.

107 posted on 06/28/2012 5:46:57 PM PDT by refermech
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: 5thGenTexan

Why are you giving them ideas?

108 posted on 06/28/2012 5:49:34 PM PDT by Tea Party Terrorist (Fast & Furious: Proof the Government should not have access to guns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: refermech

Good for the GOP, bad for the country.

Anyways, McConnell does not have the appetite for repealing this law.

109 posted on 06/28/2012 5:53:25 PM PDT by Tea Party Terrorist (Fast & Furious: Proof the Government should not have access to guns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: refermech; Whenifhow

Where we go from here is a completely different issue.

But the whole point of this inexplicable thread was to provide cover for Roberts.


He screwed us all. He screwed the Constitution. He WROTE law. He turned it into a tax so it could survive instead of just knocking it down like Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy.

I won’t excuse Roberts here. He did it on purpose.

People have got to face reality.

This is a don’t believe your lying eyes post.

110 posted on 06/28/2012 5:54:34 PM PDT by Smokeyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow; butterdezillion

Remember that it is the “Individual” in question.

This term individual is used in sections 26 U.S.C. §1 and 26 U.S.C. §6012(a). It is never defined anywhere in the I.R.C. The reason it is not defined is that it would give away the IRS’ ruse. Therefore, we have to look in the legal dictionary for the definition:

Individual. As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include [be limited to] artificial persons.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, on page 773]

Note that this definition above does not necessarily imply a natural (biological) person. Therefore, the Internal Revenue Code cannot be said to necessarily apply to natural persons. Here is the proper definition of “individual” in the context of the IRS form 1040 and within the meaning of the code, as we understand it:


An artificial federally-chartered entity, meaning a federal (but not state) chartered corporation or partnership or trust. Such an entity is a citizen of the “United States” because it must have a physical presence in the District of Columbia to be subject to the exclusive legislative or territorial jurisdiction of the United States under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution. This “individual” is NOT a natural person with income from outside the district (federal) United States who is living and working for a private employer in the 50 united States of America because of the restrictions on direct taxes imposed by Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4, and Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution..>[1]

We will now examine the definition of “individual” found in 26 CFR §1.1441-1(c )(3):

26 CFR 1.1441-1 Requirement for the deduction and withholding of tax on payments to foreign persons.

(c ) Definitions

(3) Individual.

(i) Alien individual.

The term alien individual means an individual who is not a citizen or a national of the United States. See Sec. 1.1-1(c).

(ii) Nonresident alien individual.

The term nonresident alien individual means a person described in section 7701(b)(1)(B), an alien individual who is a resident of a foreign country under the residence article of an income tax treaty and Sec. 301.7701(b)-7(a)(1) of this chapter, or an alien individual who is a resident of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or American Samoa as determined under Sec. 301.7701(b)-1(d) of this chapter. An alien individual who has made an election under section 6013 (g) or (h) to be treated as a resident of the United States is nevertheless treated as a nonresident alien individual for purposes of withholding under chapter 3 of the Code and the regulations thereunder.

The above definition ought to raise some BIG red flags! First of all, if you live in the [federal] United States** as a natural person, you aren’t an “individual” because the definition of “individual” doesn’t include citizens or residents of the United States**! This is the ONLY definition of the term “individual” found ANYWHERE in either the Internal Revenue Code or the 26 CFR Regulations. Therefore, the tax code can’t apply to you even if you claim to be a U.S.** citizen or a U.S.** resident! This is also consistent with our findings earlier. It also explains why a U.S. citizen is defined as someone who lives in the Virgin Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, or American Samoa, as follows:

26 CFR 31.3121(e) State, United States, and citizen.

(b)…The term ‘citizen of the United States’ includes a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, and, effective January 1, 1961, a citizen of Guam or American Samoa.

The definition for “individual” that the government wants you to incorrectly assume, however, is that found below:

5 U.S.C. §552a(a)(2):

(2) the term ‘’individual’’ means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence;

But this definition of “individual” is superseded by the only definition of “individual” found in the Regulations for taxes in 26 CFR 1.1441-1 above. You therefore can’t be a “individual” who can be the “person” against whom the income tax is imposed under 26 U.S.C. §1 unless you either reside OUTSIDE the “United States**” under 26 CFR § 1.1441-1(c )(3) or you reside INSIDE the United States** and are not a U.S.** citizen. That’s why they created a definition of “U.S. citizen” that means you are living outside the United States (in the Virgin Islands) so they can “pretend” that you are taxable! That way, even when you tell them you live in the “United States” by giving them an address in the 50 states on your tax return, they can still claim that you live in Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands because of your status as a “U.S. citizen”! This whole scheme can be confirmed by ordering a copy of your Individual Master File (IMF) from the IRS and looking at the transaction codes on the IMF. If you look at your IMF and you have been filing 1040 forms for a while, chances are your record reflects that you reside in the Virgin Islands, even if you really live in one of the 50 states outside the federal zone! That’s why the IRS made the Publication 6209, which is used for decoding the IMF file, “For Official Use Only”, which is short for “Don’t let Citizens get their hands on this at all costs!”. They know they are committing fraud and they don’t want you, the Citizen, to know the horrible truth and expose that fraud, because then they lose their ability to claim “plausible deniability”.

I bet this all sounds pretty crazy to you, right, but I swear to God it’s the truth! These are the kinds of sneaky tricks that IRS lawyers make their living dreaming up in order to make the illegal fraud and extortion called the income tax look more “civilized” and believable and well hidden from public view. If they wanted it in public view, they would have put the definitions of “U.S. citizen” and “individual” in the Internal Revenue Code right? But they instead buried it deep inside regulations that few Citizens ever view and only the agency itself usually looks at because they wanted to hide it!

The above definitions of “Alien individual” and “Nonresident alien individual” in 26 CFR §1.1441(c )(3) can also seem a little confusing initially. You will find out that we suggest to people later in this book (in section 5.6.9 to be exact) that they should renounce their “U.S.** citizenship” and become “U.S.*** nationals”. However, looking at 26 CFR 1.1441-1(c )(3)(i) above leads one to believe that they cannot be a nonresident alien if they are a “U.S. national”. However, “nonresident aliens” are defined below:

111 posted on 06/28/2012 6:48:14 PM PDT by phockthis ( ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kenny

Without having completely read the opinion, I agree that now all who voted for ObamaCare will have to defend their vote for a TAX! This is a very potent political add and debate tool for the conservatives. Look at the San Diego newspaper poll on this, last time I looked it was 63% against the USSC opinion on ObamaCare, (should now be called ObamaTax). So if the Tea Party and conservatives hammer the Dems with this TAX, they will attract a lot more Independents. My thoughts.

112 posted on 06/28/2012 7:06:48 PM PDT by usnavy_cop_retired (Retiree in the P.I. living as a legal immigrant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow
Roberts has become the most despised person in America, an entirely self-inflicted act. He single-handedly turned the biggest Republican victory in our lifetimes into the biggest defeat, for no apparent reason.


113 posted on 06/28/2012 7:10:57 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you can vote for President, then your children can run for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: usnavy_cop_retired

I don’t think ANY democrat will have a hard time justifying a tax increase, it’s like a bodily function to them. They want to raise taxes, they exist to raise taxes and they’re proud to raise taxes. They will never be held to account from their constituents because most don’t pay taxes and they never will.

This non-decision decision, squib kick of a clusterfark has doomed the country. One day, sooner or later they will get all three branches and they will exercise this authority and it will be over. The door has been opened and as soon as the guard falls asleep, we will lose everything, including our virtue.

It was not a political calculation, his written decision was a suicide note.

114 posted on 06/28/2012 7:14:02 PM PDT by newnhdad (Where will you be during the Election Riots of 2012/2013?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: refermech

I’m trying hard to remember the name of some movie from the mid-1980s, in which a terrorist/robber corners a man, kidnaps (then releases based on ransom) his wife, and demands the man’s car.

The man says OK, you can have the car.

So the thief gets in, gloating, thinking he’s pulled a fast one.

Then the man, as he is walking away, activates a remote device.

The doors to the car lock. The thief can’t undo them. He panics and hammers on the windows and yells to be let out.

Then the man activates the remote device again, and the car blows up.

What was the name of that movie?

115 posted on 06/28/2012 7:23:02 PM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: phockthis

Thanks for the information -

31 Questions and Answers about the Internal Revenue Service

See #2
Answer: The IRS appears to be a collection agency working for foreign banks and operating out of Puerto Rico under color of the Federal Alcohol Administration (“FAA”).

116 posted on 06/28/2012 7:31:23 PM PDT by Whenifhow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: usnavy_cop_retired

True but we have to get our friends and families off their butts and into the campaign. GOP has proven they can’t win a race even when it’s handed to them on a silver platter, it’s up to us.

Let’s hit them with the tax, find ways to get Obamacare back in front of SCOTUS, and keep fighting.

117 posted on 06/28/2012 7:44:21 PM PDT by Kenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow

If you spend a few weeks reading at the ‘’ site, you will learn chit loads about the law.

Go to the ‘Federal zone’,[Tagline] lots of good info.

When your done there let me know, I have other good sites that revel the truth about these Marxist b-—ards.

118 posted on 06/28/2012 8:20:45 PM PDT by phockthis ( ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Kenny

Unfortunately I can’t be of much help since I’m in the Philippines, but I can encourage my family in the states to get moving and involved. We must defeat Obama and every democrat up for re-election/election.

119 posted on 06/28/2012 8:29:01 PM PDT by usnavy_cop_retired (Retiree in the P.I. living as a legal immigrant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Kenny

Easier to overturn a tax in the Senate than a *mandate*.

Also, States would have fewer problems if they declined all Federal aid.

H’mmm. That might mean declining educational block grants and therefore refusing the Federalization of education.

120 posted on 06/28/2012 9:14:27 PM PDT by reformedliberal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-122 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson