One Stone, Two Powers: How Chief Justice Roberts Saved America

"So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand, he struck down the Philistine and killed him." - 1 Samuel 17:50

Many people are very angry at Chief Justice John Roberts for his ruling that Obamacare is Constitutional as a tax. They are outraged at what they see as his validation of the complete usurpation of Constitutional protections, and terrified that America has been effectively destroyed. Some of them are even talking "revolution," and asking each other in person, and in print, "what are you prepared to do"?

Well this analysis of the Roberts ruling asks the same thing, but in a different context. What are you prepared to do? Are you, for example, prepared to read? Are you prepared to learn? Are you prepared to entertain the concept that you might be wrong about Roberts - about what he actually ruled, about what he actually meant, about what he actually did, and why the rest of the Court would not stand with him?

Because if you aren't, then don't bother reading any further. Beware: this analysis pops bubbles - hard. Here's a taste of what I mean:

You know all the yowling and screaming about how Roberts changed a penalty into a tax? In his ruling, Roberts quoted Obamacare itself, at Title 26, § 5000A (g) (1), which reads:

The penalty provided by this section ... shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68.

Then Roberts did this amazing, totally judicial thing that no one else can possibly do except someone with his vast power at their fingertips - he actually looked up the law that Obamacare quoted. And when he did, he found that subchapter B of chapter 68, specifically at § 6671 (a), says:

The penalties and liabilities provided by this subchapter shall be ... assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes. ...any reference in this title to "tax" imposed by this title shall be deemed also to refer to the penalties and liabilities provided by this subchapter.

Then, after reading these actual laws cited by Obamacare itself, Roberts made this blockbuster observation: "The requirement to pay is found in the Internal Revenue Code and enforced by the IRS, which-as we previously explained-must assess and collect it "in the same manner as taxes."

Let's see, Roberts said the penalty must be assessed and collected "in the same manner as taxes" after reading that Obamacare itself invokes § 6671 (a) - which literally and specifically states the penalty must be assessed and collected "in the same manner as taxes."

And what exactly is § 6671 (a)? It a part of the Internal Revenue Code that was there before Obamacare was even created! All Obamacare did was point to it, and say "use that."

So why weren't Americans enraged about how § 6671 (a) equates the treatment of penalties as taxes before Obamacare?

People can disagree with him if they want, but how the hell can anyone say Roberts is "legislating from the bench" when he simply repeats back pre-existing tax law that Obamacare references for itself? Of course, the answer to that question is simple - no one actually looked up the laws before they decided that their country had been "destroyed." Yet they're ready to fight a "revolution" over it!

If you want to get angry, get angry about how the other eight Justices didn't point out this simple fact about penalties already being treated as taxes. After all, that's what judges are supposed to do - right? Point out what the law is, rather than what anyone wants it to be? Right? And isn't that exactly what the Chief Justice did here?

Maybe that's why he's Chief Justice - he gets to read the actual laws. Maybe all the other Justices have to listen to the media to find out how they should rule.

So you're warned: this analysis is not for the squeamish. But if you really want to learn what Roberts did, and why he did it, and what the Obamacare tax laws actually mean (as opposed to what you thought they meant), read on.

• Chief Justice Roberts limited the Constitutionality of Obamacare to ONLY those statutorily-defined "persons" upon whom the income tax is imposed.

Taxes, whether "voluntary" or not, are subject to enforcement. If a tax can't be enforced, it's not a tax.

That's why the income tax law, Title 26, Chapter 1, Section 1, starts out with: "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual..."

And the Obamacare law, Title 26, § 5000A, (b) (1) starts out with: "...there is hereby imposed on the taxpayer who is an applicable individual a penalty..."

Notice the mutual use of the word "imposed"? It means enforced by the government.

Obamacare, at Title 26, § 5000A, (b) (2) states: "Any penalty imposed by this section ... shall be included with a taxpayer's return under chapter 1..."

Chapter 1 of Title 26 (the Internal Revenue Code) is where the income tax is imposed. Title 26 is also where Obamacare is found. So when Obamacare penalties (which enable it to be imposed and therefore enforced) are specified within Obamacare itself to be part of the income tax return, they are also thereby making those penalties subject to the income tax enforcement laws of Title 26.

In his ruling, Roberts observed that Obamacare specified that it's penalty "shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68," which in turn specifies that those penalties "shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes." Then he notes that the authority for those acts are found in "§6201 (assessment authority); §6301 (collection authority)," which are the same authorities used for assessing and collecting income taxes.

Then Roberts says something very curious. He says: "That interpretation is consistent with the remainder of §5000A(g), which instructs the Secretary on the tools he may use to collect the penalty. See §5000A(g)(2)(A) (barring criminal prosecutions); §5000A(g)(2)(B) (prohibiting the Secretary from using notices of lien and levies)."

Look what stands out - what Roberts is saying are "tools that may be used to collect the penalty" are actually, if you look at his parenthetical descriptions, denials of the tools necessary to collect the penalty. The first refers to "barring criminal prosecutions," and the second refers to "prohibiting the Secretary from using notices of lien and levies."

So how are they "tools that may be used to collect the penalty"? And besides, just how is the Obamacare tax penalty going to be collected, if both criminal prosecutions and liens and levies cannot be used to go get it?

(A) In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.

(B) The Secretary shall not (i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or (ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.

Section (A) has to do with "barring criminal prosecutions." Sounds nice - but what does it apply to? A failure to "timely pay" a penalty.

Guess what? Failure to timely pay a penalty is NOT a criminal act. Usually, it invokes further penalties and interest. Only if you fail to pay altogether could the situation reach criminal status, and even then, it would have to be willful. Otherwise, the penalties and interest would just continue to pile up. "Willful failure to pay" is not "failure to timely pay." So since the ONLY criminal charge that § 5000A (g) (2) (A) protects a taxpayer from doesn't exist, the entire statute is a fraud. It's meant to make people think Obamacare is harmless, and that deliberately putting off paying its penalty won't make anyone subject to criminal charges. But this isn't true.

How about Section (B)? Well, a levy is a seizure of property. For that to happen, a lien has to be filed first, specifying what property is to be seized, and that due process has been followed. After the lien has been filed, but before the levy is made upon the property, a notice of lien is sent to the taxpayer who owns the property the government intends to seize through levy, to let them know that the lien has been filed against them.

Now what does (B)(i) say? That a "notice of lien" shall not be filed. Well, notices of lien aren't filed, except as copies of the mailing that was made to the taxpayer. Liens are filed - that's the functional act. Not "notices of lien." Filing a "notice of lien" is NOT the same thing as filing a "lien," because it does NOT legally enable a levy. It's literally just a "notice" that an actual "lien" has been filed. And it's supposed to be mailed, not "filed." So when (B)(i) forbids it to be filed, well good - because it's not supposed to be anyway! Yet this was obviously written to make you to think it's talking about actual liens, when it says "notices of lien" - when it's not.

How about (B)(ii), where it is specified that no "levy on any such property" shall be made. Well, what "such" property? None other than the property in (B)(i) of course, that was specified in the "notice of lien." But wait a second - you can't legally levy property from just a "notice of lien" anyway! You need a real lien to levy property! So this section, once again, is saying that something illegal will not be done by the government - specifically, that no property will seized with just a "notice of lien" to back up the levy. Hey, thanks a lot.

So what are we left with here? What did Roberts draw our attention to, when he specified laws in Obamacare that he said are tools to collect the penalty, when they seemed to be tools to prevent the collection of the penalty? He did nothing less than to indicate that these prevention tools are no such thing - that they block nothing, and that the only actual tools that are indicated enable the full collection powers of Title 26 tax laws to be used (i.e., it's a fully functional Death Star). And not just those directed by "subchapter B of chapter 68," but also criminal penalties, and lien and levy powers. Even worse, both of these were cited by Obamacare not only to mislead the public, but also to establish a judicially noticeable reference to legitimize their usage against the public.

Roberts deliberately drew attention to this. And in doing so, he effectively said, "watch out - read carefully, this ruling is dealing with a law that was written to deceive. You have to be very careful in your reading of both it and my ruling if you want to understand what everything means."

Then, concerning enforcement, he showed that nothing in Obamacare blocks the usage of Subchapter B of Chapter 68, Criminal, or Lien & Levy powers against taxpayers to collect Obamacare penalties.

Well, when Chief Justice Roberts referenced Obamacare's use of "subchapter B of chapter 68," he cited a statute from within that subchapter to support his interpretation of its usage - specifically, he cited §6671(a).

If you look up §6671(a), you'll find that it does, indeed, support Robert's interpretation.

You also find, underneath it, §6671(b) - right where the Chief Justice wanted you to find it.

• The term "person", as used in this subchapter, 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.

That's a very important definition of "person." But before we get into that subject - remember those other two enforcement tools that were supposedly banned from use, but actually were not, discussed above in Point #3? The first was criminal enforcement. The second was lien and levy powers.

Criminal enforcement is found in Chapter 75 of Title 26. Thus, the definition of "person" for the purposes of criminal enforcement is found in that chapter. Specifically, it is found in Title 26, Chapter 75, § 7343, which reads:

• 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.

Finally, lien and levy powers are found in the chapters 63 and 64 specified by Chief Justice Roberts in his ruling, where he references them as the "assessment § 6201 (a)" and "collection § 6301" chapters, respectively. Now, liens are only useful to enable levies, so definitions for levy powers also reference lien powers. And in the levy chapter (64), at § 6332 (f), we find the following definition of "person":

• The term "person," as used in subsection (a), 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 surrender the property or rights to property, or to discharge the obligation.

Take a moment at this point, to compare the three definitions of "person" cited from references from Robert's ruling listed above, that are found in three different enforcement sections of Title 26.

Yet, if you look up the general Title 26 definition of "person" in § 7701 (a) (1), you'll find:

"The term "person" shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation."

Notice that generally speaking, for the entirety of Title 26, the term "person" also means the term 'individual.' That's why when the income tax laws and Obamacare laws address 'individuals' and 'persons,' they have identical meanings.

But compare: the general definition of "person" in § 7701 (a) (1) above says it's just "an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation." That's it - no fine print.

But the definition of "person" for enforcement purposes in the above cited §§ 6671 (b), 7343 and 6332 (f) are way, way, way more narrow. To be that 'person,' you have to be:

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.

That's a lot more specific than just being an "individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation."

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.

And by direct reference through Obamacare itself, the enforcement laws that the government would use to go after "persons" it claims are violating Obamacare taxes OR penalties OR fines are also found in §§ 6671 (b), 7343 and 6332 (f).

So if you are not that definition of "person," (which is repeated three different times in Title 26 to make absolutely clear exactly who it is talking about), then you are NOT liable for any other taxes which make use of the enforcement provisions linked to that definition, including income tax OR Obamacare.

And in his ruling, Chief Justice Roberts deliberately cited a law which, if you actually look it up, is right next to the enforcement definition of "person" for Chapter 68, Subchapter B, and he also indicated that further enforcement definitions should be sought for the fully applicable criminal, and lien and levy, chapters of Title 26 - all of which turned out to be identical enforcement definitions for the term "person."

So if the definition of "person" is so important, why do both the income tax laws and Obamacare laws refer to individuals?

Think of it this way - persons or individuals may be subject to the enforcement of a particular tax, depending on a lot of things. Taxpayers, however, are persons or individuals who are subject to the enforcement of a particular tax.

That's why Title 26, § 7701 (a) states: The term "taxpayer" means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.

So it's clear that both individuals and persons may be subject to tax, depending on what definitions of those terms apply to them.

That's why both the income tax statutes and the Obamacare statutes make so much use of the term "taxpayers." When they are talking about someone who might be subject to the tax, then they use the terms "person" or "individual." But when they are talking about someone who absolutely is subject to the tax, then they use the term "taxpayer."

Both the income tax, and Obamacare, start out by saying "a tax is imposed." Not "a tax is made," or a "tax exists," or just "a tax."

So if it can't be enforced against your definition of "person," it can't be imposed on you.

Even (and especially), if you fit the general definition of "person" or "individual," but not the enforcement definition of "person."

Point #7: News Flash - The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court Knows All of This

Well, he did say it. Specifically, Roberts wrote: "The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command. The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax."

This is the paragraph that drives everyone crazy. This is the paragraph that makes everyone scream that Roberts is crazy. But apply what has been explained above, to what Roberts wrote. He's talking about what "The Federal Government" has "the power" to do. And as has been explained, you have to ask yourself: do what, to whom?

He says: "the power to order people to buy" Then he says: "the power to impose a tax on those"

Order people - the government does NOT have the power to "order" a free people.

Impose tax on those - the government DOES have the power to "impose" on "those," because: "THOSE" are TAXPAYERS!

Taxpayers are - literally by triple definition - imposed persons subject to enforcement via the detailed descriptions provided in §§ 6671 (b), 7343 and 6332 (f) of Title 26, specifically: 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.

And, regarding "those 'persons,'" - and ONLY "those 'persons,'" - Chief Justice Roberts ruled that Obamacare IS Constitutional:

"The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance."

HOWEVER, he also specifically ruled that against the people (as in We The People), Obamacare is NOT constitutional:

"The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance."

Roberts specifically protected the constitutional freedom of the American People, right in front of their eyes, according to the actual meaning of the actual tax laws...

...after ruling against any other constitutional clause that could serve to confuse the tax issues.

Because in Doing So, He Isolated and Exposed The Secret of LIMITED Tax Liability!

If you've come this far, and didn't know this material beforehand, you might be in a bit of a shock at this point. Basically, the reason that Obamacare doesn't apply to 95% of Americans is because it can only be enforced against people responsible for running corporations - not normal people simply working and living on their own personal behalf. And more, those limitations on the enforcement laws don't come out of Obamacare. Rather, they're a part of the income tax laws that have been there all along, and that Obamacare has attached itself to, in order to make use of them.

Can this really be possible? It would mean that there are two separate enforcement powers held by the Federal government - one for corporation "persons," and one for non-corporate, regular human-being-type, natural persons. And that a giant scam has taken place by the government using legally defined terms such as "person," and "individual," and "taxpayer," in order to confuse these identities, and especially to hide the two different powers of government.

Well, let's look at Chief Justice Roberts again, and see what he said about this subject. In his ruling, Roberts wrote:

"This case concerns two powers that the Constitution does grant the Federal Government, but which must be read carefully to avoid creating a general federal authority akin to the police power."

Now that's a hell of a thing to say, isn't it? "This case concerns two powers." If you disregard the analysis presented above, then ask yourself - what two powers?

After all, isn't that why the country has been ripping itself to shreds over Robert's ruling, because it's only taking into account a single power - that of the Federal government? You might say, well, there's the powers of the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause that Roberts threw out, when he kept the taxing power in. But that's three powers total, not two. So what's the difference between them? How do you turn three powers into two? And for that matter, why should there be multiple powers in the first place? Don't we have only one government?

No, we don't. We have two "governments," in fact. Two completely separate "governments," under one Constitution.

The first "government" is the original one. It deals with human beings acting as human beings and nothing else. That government has to deal with a position derived from those human beings. And those human beings are acknowledged as possessing God-given natural rights, that existed before the "government" was created, and which cannot be removed by that "government," because it simply does not have the authority.

The second "government," however, is exactly the opposite of the first one. The second "government" creates, controls and runs corporations. The very word "incorporate" means "give body to," or "bring into existence." And because that "government" creates corporations, it owns those corporation completely - because of the fact that it is their creator.

Thus legally, corporations are slaves to the "government" that created them, by definition. They are created, live in obedience to, and die at the command of that "government" - including paying taxes to that "government." And the rules that that "government" can make for those corporations are literally unlimited, because those corporations have no rights. They only have privileges that are granted to them by their creator "government," privileges which can be changed or terminated at any time, solely at the pleasure of that "government."

Functionally, those are the two "governments" which comprise the two main Federal jurisdictional powers of our one constitutional Republic. And thus, they are the "two powers" to which Roberts is referring. And he acknowledges them both as constitutionally legitimate.

But he also warns that it is extremely dangerous to mix them up. In fact, he points out that if you mix them up, you can end up with what he calls " a general federal authority akin to the police power."

But isn't that exactly what everyone is afraid Roberts has actually done with his ruling?

Yet here he is specifically warning everyone against making that interpretation of his ruling, and teaching that the way to avoid that terrible mistake is to "read carefully."

So that's what this analysis is - a very, very careful reading. It is not my interpretation of Roberts. It is my careful reading of what Roberts actually said, per his specific instructions.

Two governmental powers exist. Roberts said so, and warned against confusing them. For the Chief Justice said that if we mix them up, WE will create - by our very ignorance - "a general federal authority akin to the police power."

So what does that mean? It means enabling the Federal government, through Obamacare, to start treating We The People of inalienable human rights, like wholly-owned government-privileged corporations, for everything.

But wait a second, (I imagine you say again). What about forcing everyone to pay income tax already? If Obamacare doesn't apply to 95% of Americans because it is imposed by corporate income tax enforcement laws, then how the hell does the government get away with applying those same corporate income tax enforcement laws to non-corporate, regular human people-persons for the income tax?

Remember in his ruling that Roberts said that "without a careful reading" you can create "a general federal authority akin to the police power" concerning Obamacare?

Well concerning the income tax, most Americans have NOT made a "careful reading" of the tax laws, and therefore HAVE created a specific "federal authority akin to the police power" concerning the subject of income taxes.

You see, as free human beings, we have the right to make contracts. And there is such a thing as a presumed contract. What the government has done is argued to the courts - and the courts have agreed - that the government is not responsible for people's legal ignorance, and that if they act in such a way as to functionally volunteer to be treated as a corporation, then the government gets to treat them like a corporation.
Even worse, courts have agreed that neither they, nor other government officials, have to tell you you're being treated as a corporation, under the interpretation that you don't need to be told, since you volunteered in the first place.

And then, to top it off, the government has created rules to make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for you to not be treated like a corporation anymore, by presuming that until you have proven you're not a corporation, they get to pound down on you just as if you were a corporation that was faking being a human being. As a result, you can actually be convicted for fraud, and go to jail, for demanding you not be treated as if you were a corporation!

So the technical answer is no, 95% of Americans don't have to pay the income tax, because it's enforcement mechanisms specify that only corporations, or people responsible for corporations, are subject to income tax enforcement.

The practical answer, however, is that without a lot of money and legal representation, the government will use the presumption that you are a corporation against you to seize your money and property, and throw you in jail, long before you can get through all the court hearings necessary for them to admit that you are a non-corporate human being-type person. Or they will simply show you that that's what they are going to do to you, unless you sign a document agreeing that you are, in fact, a corporation, and agree that you've been a very, very bad corporation, and that you deserve to pay all sorts of fines in order to stay out of jail.

So DO NOT THINK you can use the information in this analysis - even by quoting Chief Justice John Roberts of the United States Supreme Court - to stop paying income taxes.

The IRS will simply STOMP you into oblivion, because legally, they get to treat you under the presumption that you are a corporation - and they don't have to acknowledge any "presumed corporations" that try to claim they are not corporations.

That's right, according to tax laws, interpretations and rulings, pointing out that you are a human being who does not fit the specifications of the actual income tax enforcement laws, is frivolous.

Contrary to what most people think, judges can't just go rule on something if they think it is wrong. They have to wait for an appropriate case to come to them, and sometimes it never does. Also, cases themselves have all sorts of issues and parts to them. Sometimes a case will seem to be about one thing, but it's actually about another. So for the purposes of what it seems to be about, it's useless. And if political operatives have decided that certain types of cases will be ruled against their interests by certain judges, every effort will be made by those operatives to keep those cases out of those courts. Thus a judge can wait a whole career, and never rule on what he or she wants to rule on.

The opposite is also true. Sometimes a case shows up, and a judge realizes - this is it, now or never. Another opportunity may never come, or come too late to matter. So they act.

That, I believe, is what Chief Justice Roberts has done with his Obamacare ruling. If he waited longer to make this ruling, Obamacare would be in another form, and perhaps not so amenable to exposure for what it really is. Or, such a vast bureaucracy will have been formed by the time he got to rule on it, that enormous damage to the country would have been done in the mean time. Or he simply might not have gotten to be the swing vote, and would have been out-voted no matter what his position was.

Simply put, he raised the alarm about something that goes far, far beyond Obamacare. In fact, it goes straight to the heart of why everyone is so upset. Roberts not only drew attention to the fact that, by simply positioning anything they want as a tax, the government can force anyone to do anything at any time - he certified that concept as constitutional. And by doing that, he made sure the vulnerability of the country to totally legal tyranny would not go away. For even if Obamacare was repealed, his ruling would still stand, and Congress could just try again with something else.

But why would Roberts do such a thing? After all, he actually warned against the creation of "a general federal authority akin to the police power." And he also said elsewhere in his ruling, "our respect for Congress's policy judgments thus can never extend so far as to disavow restraints on federal power that the Constitution carefully constructed." Yet after saying these things, he then went and enabled them!

Except he didn't. Because he pointed out - subtly, but clearly, for those who follow his hints as I have here - that these powers Congress is trying to use against the People do not, in fact, apply to them, but only to corporations.

But the man is a Federal judge - the TOP Federal judge. Do you think, even for a moment, Roberts isn't fully aware of what the IRS "legally" does to people who try to use Roberts own argument against them?

And that matters. Because by definition, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court is not frivolous. Even by the interpretations of the IRS.

You see, Roberts jammed the machine. And scared the shit out of the entire Federal government by doing it. That's why no other Justice would join him - he terrified them.

And he did it because it was the only way he could find to halt the unstoppable expansion of a process that was originally promised by Congress to be limited only to the income tax - but technically could be applied to anything.

• The ability of the Federal government, to presume that natural human person Americans had volunteered to be treated as corporations under the law;

• The ability of the Federal government to do this without telling them that such a presumption had been made against them;

• The ability of the Federal government to use this presumption to deny Americans their inalienable constitutional rights by replacing them with government-controlled corporate privileges;

• And finally, the ability of the Federal government to not tell Americans how to get out of that presumption without being harmed by trying to do so.

When Obamacare came up as a tax law, Roberts - and all the Justices - knew what this meant. It meant Congress had gone back on their promise to presume this terrible corporate tax power upon people only for the purpose of the income tax, and use it for everything. Because Obamacare was the generalization of this principle that opened the door to its infinite use. As long as the only application of these tax laws were for income taxes, that single application stood as a kind of protection. But with a second application, the principle became generalized, and with that, the door swung open.

But the real problem was that it was legal. Yet Roberts did not make it legal - it was made legal before Roberts was even born. People have a constitutional right to contract. Contracts can be presumed by behavior. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. It's all there - but in its application to tax laws, and now Obamacare (and with that literally everything else), it has become diabolical.

So what was Roberts to do? Throw it out? If he did that, it would come back. Congress is obviously licking it's chops over expanding this principle of empowerment through tax enforcement. Obamacare, or something like it, or something else, would come back again, and again, and again - and each time it would be, technically, constitutional.

So Roberts decided to make a stand. Like John Hancock signing his name big enough on the Declaration of Independence to make sure the King saw it, Chief Justice Roberts ensured with the signing of his Obamacare ruling that unless everyone works together, no one is ever going home to freedom again. Because the only way out of this problem is for Americans to know about it, understand it, and craft a constitutional protection against it.

But against people being treated as corporations, and losing their rights, through presumption.

Remember Pelosi gloating that you'd have to pass Obamacare to see what was in it? She was telling you the truth about the government's use of presumption. The government presumes that you've voluntarily surrendered your humanity for corporate status, and then passes bills without telling you what's in them, because you have no right to know what your corporate masters are doing until they want to tell you. Even then, they don't have to tell you - Pelosi didn't say she'd explain it, just that you could read it, if it was passed.

That's what happens if you fight the IRS, too - they are allowed to presume the corporate laws apply to you, and that you therefore have to pay the tax before you can challenge the tax in court. But then, if you pay and fight, the government doesn't have to tell you you're being treated as a volunteer corporation. Instead, they rule that your claims of humanity are frivolous because you're obeying corporate laws and standing in a corporate administrative court. This secret presumption been repeatedly ruled as Constitutional. You just don't know about it.

So you can see why those who would convert the entirety of the Constitution into tax laws, are drunk on the mechanism of presumption. That's why Pelosi replied, when asked if Obamacare was Constitutional, "Are you serious!? Are you serious!?" Look at her reply legally: she mocked the question as frivolous, because in doing so she limited her response to only incorporated "persons"!

And remember, she was saying this as Speaker of the House of Representatives. In other words, she wasn't without authority when she said it. She specifically invoked the power of secret presumption by using contempt, in order to hide behind it's legal protections. Government employees use this indemnification technique all the time, because the people don't know it's a legal statement!

Before Obamacare, secret presumption meant income tax. Now, it means people forced to face death panels and perform abortions against their religious beliefs - when they don't actually have to!

That's why SECRET PRESUMPTION is the monumental problem Roberts has chosen to expose with his courageous ruling. And he did it now because our country is poised on the edge of a precipice - right now. Compared to the absolute catastrophe of generalizing the secret taxing authority presumption, all the hell of Obamacare is merely one example, with an infinite number of the same kinds of tax laws right behind it, waiting only for Congress to vote.

But Roberts also showed the SOLUTION to the problem, when he wrote, "The Framers created a Federal Government of limited powers, and assigned to this Court the duty of enforcing those limits. But the Court does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act. Under the Constitution, that judgment is reserved to the people."

Only the People can put a Constitutional Stop to the government's currently LEGAL use of the secret presumption of corporate status against human beings. Robert's can't do that himself. But in a single astonishing ruling, Chief Justice Roberts has warned the American People of what is being done to them, how it is being done, and the immanent danger of its expansion of use.

What the American People will now do about this problem remains to be seen. One thing is sure, though - the more people who know about it, the better. Peaceful change can only come from knowledge. So pass the word.

• "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."

I would add to your comments that it also immediately occured to me when reading Talisker's analysis that the word "includes" in those portions of the tax code cited is being misconstrued as an exhaustive list that necessarily excludes those types of persons not included in the list. However, there is nothing in the word, "includes" that automatically excludes anything and everything not mentioned. In fact, it means the opposite. The word means:

"to comprise or contain as part of a whole: "the price includes dinner".
Make part of a whole or set: "we have included some hints for beginners in this section".

The bottom line is that there is just nothing in the language of those portions of the tax code that restricts the whole of taxpayers or persons to those particular entities mentioned in these sections. It shouldn't be necessary to have to point out that part of the whole set is not the same thing as the whole set.

Cordially,

Here are two addenda that might clear up some misconceptions about this analysis:

First, the reason I said not to use this argument to fight the IRS is simply because the government plays a lot of nasty games with legal procedure. This is the correct argument. But if it is new to you, then federal administrative procedure is probably new to you too. And that’s how the IRS “beats” people - they’re right, but the IRS wins through legal shenanigans.

Here’s a true story example of the concept - recently, a man showed up who wandered away twenty years ago and was declared dead. Now he wants to collect social security, but his ex-wife sued to stop him, because she’s collecting survivor’s benefits. Now get this about federal procedure: the judge ruled for the wife. The judge look straight into the guy’s eyes and told him that he was still legally dead, and until that changed, he had no case.

THAT is federal procedure, and that’s why I warned people not to use this argument - NOT because the argument is wrong, but because federal procedure is so dangerous. Instead, all that people have to do is get this understanding out, and stpread the word. If enough people know about it, it will create a political pressure that will get the job done for everyone. That way everyone stays safe.

Second, there is a serious misconception about the wording of administrative statutory law. Unlike normal speech, legal speech is always self-defined. That’s because it is what is called “positive law” - it asserts exactly what it is in control of. The flip side of that, is that if it does not assert something, it has no control over it.

So - in pertinent example - if the law says it “includes” something, or a list of somethings, that’s ALL it includes. It doesn’t include everything or everyone else AND that list, otherwise that list would not be necessary. This is not my opinion - this is established legal construction rules, and the reason that legal definitions are so incredibly important. And in fact, if you got just one single new understanding about legalspeak, let it be this one. Because government lawyers get away with more wrongful presumption and misunderstanding by using the word “includes” than perhaps anything else they do.

You’re absolutely right! “Those” can ONLY refer to “people.”

No, not only is he absolutely wrong, he is fundamentally and elementarily wrong, to the level of a first year law student's curriculum wrong. This type of statutory construction is not even remotely subject to doubt, since the entirety of statutory and regulatory law utterly depends on it. You will not find one attorney or judge who will sign their name to disagreeing with it, because it would be the same as a mathemetician admitting that they don't know how to add.

This type of construction is not developed in Obamacare or in tax laws - it is developed AS the law - ALL the laws. Every.Single.One.Of.Them. You are arguing out of complete ignorance. Understandable ignorance, though - because it is kept as a secret from the vast majority of people by the legal profession for obvious reasons. Nevertheless, it is not, in itself, under ANY doubt whatsoever. NONE.

AS I SAID ABOVE IN POST #25:

There is a serious misconception about the wording of administrative statutory law. Unlike normal speech, legal speech is always self-defined. That’s because it is what is called “positive law” - it asserts exactly what it is in control of. And the flip side of that principle is that if it does not assert something, it has no control over it.

So - in pertinent example - if the law says it “includes” something, or a list of somethings, that’s ALL it includes. It does NOT include everything or everyone else AND that list, otherwise that list would not be necessary. This is not my opinion - this is established legal construction rules, and the reason that legal definitions are so incredibly important. And in fact, if you get just one single new understanding about legalspeak, let it be this one. Because government lawyers get away with more wrongful presumption and misunderstanding by using the word “includes” than perhaps anything else they do.

What do you think giant corporations fight the government about, concerning negative effects on their profits under new or considered laws? What do you think their lobbyists LOBBY for?

One single thing: what is "included" in the legal requirements, and what is not.

And what is not included - is not included. It's left out. It's not mentioned. It's left blank. It's not listed. And that means that that law doesn't apply to whatever "it" is, BECAUSE it's not included in the list.

PERIOD.

Maybe that was Roberts’ intent: to set up the possibility of a second court decision on the constitutionality of the Obamacare tax. Limit the commerce clause in the first go round, then knock down the tax in the second. Seems to me that he should have done both since, as someone pointed out earlier, the kinds of taxes the federal government may impose are spelled out pretty clearly, and taxing non-activity (e.g. not buying health insurance) isn’t one of them.

Well I believe Roberts was doing something far deeper - he was pointing out the mistake everyone was making concerning understanding the laws, and their limitation to corporate capacity. Because as a juge, all he can do is rule on whether the law is "legal" - and Obamacare IS legal, when read strictly as it is written, because it applies ONLY to corporations, NOT non-corporate human beings. But Roberts knows people don't perceive the difference, so he write his ruling in such a way as to draw attention to the difference, to MAKE people chew on that difference, so they can see it doesn't apply to most of them. And even more, for the country to finally wake up to how its legal system really works - and that it is far more restricted than they realize.

So how is it that in the century since the income tax was established, not once has someone been able to convince a court that they’re a person and not a corporation? You would think with all there is to be gained by doing so, some competent person would have been able to get in front some sane judge and gotten him to acknowledge the obvious. The fact that it hasn’t happened makes me think there’s more to the story than the person/corporation distinction. The government’s ability to tax individuals must hinge on something else, because it seems too absurd that it would come down to that.

I share your incredulity. My research has come up with some answers.

First, before the internet, it was truly difficult to find out any of these things unless you went to law school. Everyone else was pretty much blocked by a wall of inaccessibility, not only in access to documents and teachings, but also in access to open discussion. And the reason is that when you become a lawyer and are sworn in, you become an officer of th court - the administrative court. Not the original common law court. A law was passed "combining" these two completely separate jurisdictions into one court system, and from the moment that happend, no judge has ever agreed to sit in common law. And therefore every single attorney has, as their first obedience under the law, the interests of the administrative court - NOT their clients. And it is in the interest of the administrative court that their clients not be told anything about this jurisdictional split. It is also, I might add, in the interest of the business model of attornies not to tell about any of this - otherwise, who would need them?

Secondly, even when you know what you are looking for and how to interpret it, it is hard to perceive the meaning of these "laws." They aren't called codes for nothing, after all. They were specifically written so as to be unintelligable to anyone except those who have been allowed past the "bar" - the bar to normal understanding, that is. And that's why terms of art and rules of construction are needed to decode these otherwise normal sounding words and phrases.

Finally, the way an administrative court works is that if you understand enough to deny it jurisdiction, to point out, in other words, that what it is asserting doesn't include you at all, it has no authorization to make any comment about that. So there are no records of "wins," because you can only win by showing that the court and laws don't apply - and in that case, the court has no comment. Which means no record. So people never find out about these wins.

On the negative side, if you get terminology or procedure wrong, even though in substance you are right, the court destroys you and trumpets to the world that you lost, and that no one can win - obviously in order to frighten people into not even standing up to it. And it uses a LOT of very genuinely frightening power to do this, so it's no joke. At the same time, it passes laws saying that it has to regard the true meaning of your argument, but that's a catch-22, because by arguing it, the court gets to "presume" that everything you say is at the professional level of an attorney, and therefore you aren't making any mistakes. And why? Because it only allows attorneys into administrative courts.

In other words, it's rigged for the house, just like Vegas. But it also follows extremely strict rules about its operations that can be learned by anyone. And since it is being applied so severely against everyone these days, the only real hope the people have is to roll up their sleeves and start learning.

That's why I don't tell everyone to storm the courts with this knowledge. Because there are innumerable procedures that can trip up anyone and get them into a lot of hot water, levels and levels of... stuff. I don't like this state of affairs, But it's what is going on, and has been going on for a long time. And every judge and lawyer knows it and keeps silent about it. And many bureaucrats and cops know about it to, to certain degrees, and that's why they are so careful to talk in their affected ways, "copspeak" and "bureaucratese."

But all of it - every bit of it - depends on secrecy. That's why I end "One Stone, Two Powers: How Chief Justice Roberts Saved America" not by telling everyone to study the IRS code, but by sayng that we need to pass laws requiring the government to no longer presume people are corporations. If they can't presume that, if they have to show that clearly before they can act, then it solves the two main problems - it ends the secrecy,a nd it stops the wrongly imposition of laws that are restricted to corporations alone. And those two things cover just about every injustice in America.

It's right in front of everyone's eyes. But people have to want to know it. It reminds me of the old saying, it's easy to wake someone up who is sleeping, but it's almost impossible to wake someone up who is nly pretending to be asleep. Well, Americans are pretending to be asleep - and they have to knock it off, before there's nothing left for them to wake up to.

I hear what you’re saying and it’s an interesting analysis but somehow the second order stuff doesn’t quite add up in my opinion. For instance, if that was his intent, why didn’t he come out and say it in a more obvious way? Somehow all of the legal minds out there missed what he did. Doesn’t that seem odd? Sometimes you can be having a very plausible seeming dream where everything adds up except that you’re not wearing any pants. That’s sort of how this analysis feels to me. It just seems slightly surreal.

Roberts encoded this information because he wanted it to stick. If he broke the rules of the court in any way, his ruling would have been found faulty and disregarded as binding or thrown out altogether from future effect. And remember, an administrative court CANNOT reference anything outside of its jurisdiction. So Roberts could not make this big explanation of the limits of coprorate applicability to non-corporate people, because the case never invoked non-corporate people, and therefore he couldn't bring it up. If he added it on his own, he would have gone outside the jurisdiction of his own case, and thus voided himself.

But believe me, considering the status of the Chief Justice of SCOTUS, what he DID say, and how he DID say it, was so blazingly close to pointing it out, it sounded like he was screaming it from the rooftops to the other Justices. That's why no other Justice sided with him - half were for, half were against, and he stood alone. So you see, the "legal minds" didn't miss this at all. In fact, they were appalled by it.

As for the surreality of this kind of investigation of the law, welcome to corporate law. It's sounds surreal because it IS surreal, because it's being wrongfully applied to human beings who are not corporations. It's all simply made up - but for a specific purpose. And that purpose is NOT non-corporate human beings. If you look at any specific code, like plumbing or electrical or fire or whatever, it goes into all sorts of intricacies. You don't feel those are surreal, though - they're just arcane, and specific to their application. If you then, however, force human beings to fit the requirements of the plumbing code, THAT is surreal. Yet that is exactly what is being done with corporate law - it's not surreal in itself, it's just surreal in how it's being WRONGFULLY USED.

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.