Posted on 07/07/2012 7:39:49 AM PDT by Talisker
• "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".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.
Make part of a whole or set: "we have included some hints for beginners in this section".
Cordially,
You need to switch to a Highland scotch.
BTTT
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.
There are FEDERAL LAWS stating the I-tax doesn’t apply to individuals!!!! The US Supreme Courts state the right to live, work for a living is Unconstitutional!!!! The tax code states the SAME!!!
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.
Resurrecting the thread?
To read later.
Bookmark for later read. This does look familiar, but I will look it back over. Thanks, Talisker.
Okay......
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.
Roberts is a piece of crap. Assclown of the supreme court. This is what happens when we have jackasses in power.
Glad you understand.
Because you see, those vast law libraries and IRS code books are where you are getting screwed. So Roberts is a hero because he basically told America that it is going to get off of its lazy asses and learn the law and reclaim its freedom, or he's going to let it stew in its own juices and be roasted alive by corporate socialists.
It's called Tough Love, and it took a lot of courage for Roberts to do it.
And as you are showing, its first effect is to piss people off.
But in this case, that's a good thing.
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 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.
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.
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.