Seeking Counsel

07 Nov

Seeking Counsel [courtesy Google Images]

Seeking Counsel
[courtesy Google Images]

Suppose I had what I believed to be strong evidence that a law (say, Obamacare) was unconstitutional.

Suppose I’d like to challenge that law’s constitutionality in court.

But, also suppose that I had not yet been personally damaged by Obamacare.

Is there a recognized legal theory, other than injunction, that I could use to claim standing to challenge the constitutionality of Obamacare even if I haven’t yet been personally injured by that law?

If you know of any such alternative legal theory, please let me know.

Likewise, if you know that injunction is the only legal strategy available to me until I’m actually and personally damaged, please let me know.




Posted by on November 7, 2013 in Uncategorized



55 responses to “Seeking Counsel

  1. cante2013

    November 7, 2013 at 5:46 PM

    We share many of your articles and would like to know more about your efforts regarding this issue . Please contact me at – Our news blog is

    • Adask

      November 7, 2013 at 9:07 PM

      I’m only beginning to consider the possibility of suing to prove Obamacare is facially and substantially unconstitutional. I’m beginning to gather possible causes of action, but I haven’t yet sorted them out. If and when I collect enough information to proceed further, I’ll post my suspicions and conclusions on this blog.

      I want to thank everyone who’s taken the time read my request and offer some possible counsel here in these comments.

      • greg

        November 8, 2013 at 6:28 AM

        good luck and hire a body guard

      • pop de adam

        November 8, 2013 at 1:15 PM

        If the application process requires a signature it can only be voluntary, mostly because it is then used as evidence of consent after that fact. If someone were to sign in your stead without your consent you would likely have grounds to have them prosecuted for forgery. As I have said before the health care connector forms filled in as expected and signed contain what I see as an effective power of attorney, these forms consent to among other things, access to bank account information as well as healthcare and doctors records. As a person who values both my security and privacy, I would not assent to have my signature upon such documents signify my consent to them. If you do sign, what manner of redress would you have, after all you consented?

  2. tubebuzzer

    November 7, 2013 at 6:53 PM

    I am testing a legal theory right now which relates to obamacare (I am scared stiff of having the IRS get at healthcare records). In summary I do not identify myself as the person on the birth certificate, so far the Dept of State (passport application), Registrar of Voters in Orange County, and Customs and Border patrol have recognized that the office of the 14th amendment, as it relates to the certificate of live birth issued for my benefit, but without my involvement, is not occupied.

    This means getting rid of driver license, changing bank account paperwork, social security and forever more not using a benefit of the state (the person on the birth certificate).

    Traffic violations is obviously a serious concern for many, as not having a driver license means you will eventually face charges of driving without a license or worse, which is my case right now. Ultimately however, if the govco forces you to identify yourself as the person on the birth certificate (which is government property), it becomes a title of nobility issued by the government, setting the foundation to file a powerful legal challenge. Also Title 8 of the USC provides for discrimination remedy against ‘nationals and united states citizens’

    As I claim to be a citizen of California, where my domicile and permanent home is within the borders as stated in the 1849 constitution, I have no reason to claim 14th amendment citizenship (aka U.S. Cittizenship). See Van Valkenburg v Brown 43 Cal. 43

    Obamacare has been challenged and found to be constitutional as an excise tax. As I see identifying oneself as the person on the birth certificate is voluntary, it makes this ruling simple for me to see how it is accurate. My identification is a common law ID, with an apostile (google ‘common law id for references), I own this ID and the document. When I crossed the border from Mexico, it was inconvenient, but was recognized.

    Learning to identify yourself in the same manner the people of the several states did before the civil war takes commitment and to be willing to face the beast in court. However, speaking from experience, once you realize what the nature of US citizenship as evidenced by the birth certificate is, you find it impossible to ever go back.

    If this solution is correct, my hope is that it will naturally grow as more and more Americans seek to get out from under a corrupt and tyrannical govco.

    • Adask

      November 7, 2013 at 9:04 PM

      I’m not worried that I can be subjected to Obamacare. I could be wrong, but I think I can control my identity well enough to remain exempt. My object is not to arrange for my own “escape”. My object is to discover a legal theory and strategy sufficient to cause the law to be declared unconstitutional substantially and for all.

    • doug

      November 9, 2013 at 6:06 AM

      I’m with you. I determined to leave the (this state) “system” quite a long time ago. My reasons were Biblical in nature (not to be confused with “religious” notions). I have had numerous run-ins with the authorities related to driver license issues. I no longer agree to enter their courts or pay their fines irrespective of what they decide. [They can decide whatever they want in their courts and if you’re a member in good standing in the church of total fraud and fiction – you are summarily guilty and have already admitted it by and through your signature.]

      My world and their world (jurisdictions) are incapable of recognizing each other, theirs is fiction and mine is not. No man can call himself “free” if he is forced at gun point to finance things that violate his conscious. So, regardless of the outcome I will not comply.

      After nearly 30 years of witnessing good Americans going to prison after defending their case in “this state” kangaroo courts wherein the “CON” sti-stupid is scoffed at I decided we were considered volunteers or more likely CARD CARRYING MEMBERS (SSN) obligated to honor the statutory fiction of their court.

      I have purged all fiction from my life because fiction is just another word for lie, or fraud. If one keeps even one attachment to the fictional system that’s enough to qualify as a full fledged member. Any and all relationships requiring a signature especially under an oath admitting UNITED STATES “citizenship” secure your soul to the fictional system.

  3. Secretariat

    November 7, 2013 at 7:16 PM


    I’ve enjoyed reading your exposes for many, many years. And without reserve, your research is in part, no,little matter which led me to seek self-determination as a free law ( free dominion=Freedom) sojourner, so to speak.

    I’ve study both founding principles germane to (legal) positive law (de facto) and those (lawful) to natural law (de jure).

    But we’ve both have taken a different approach to matters.

    Constitutionally speaking, I have little regard for those who rely on it and those who operate willingly under it, when all the empirical evinces point to historical facts, that such a document created by the Consitutors’ thereof, have reduced every individual who accepts the charge, of that being a citizen thereof. Whether a Citizen or otherwise, makes little difference to the populace at large.

    That being said, now to the matter at hand, to wit:

    Your main inquiry arises from the possibility of any claim to state otherwise, respective to whether any executive, legislative, or judicial remedy is available (excepting injunction) to any similarly situated such as yourself. And, whether or not, there is another justiciable cure, available to anyone, that may be injured by some future actionable cause arising from exercising such powers aforementioned. Or whether, suit can be brought under the guise of potential harm, which might occur.

    If I have miscomprehended your inquiry, please be kind enough to reconsider giving us an opportunity reasonably speaking, to address any clarification, which may cause any confusion.

    The answer to your question lays in perpetuation of testimony available to those in several ways.

    But the easiest is discoverable via ex parte motion (28 USC 1782). But, as for the remedy, any such use may be provided to you, depends on your willingness assume certain powers so to speak and not otherwise.

    During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. — George Orwell

    • Adask

      November 7, 2013 at 8:59 PM

      I’d say you comprehend my inquiry. I am looking for a legal theory under which I can sue based on damages I expect to suffer rather than damages I have already suffered. I realize that injunction may be the only theory that fits, but my understanding of injunction is that a successful case would only result in a temporary stopping of implementation of Obamacare. It may well be that an injunction and a temporary stopping is the most I can hope to achieve unless I’m actually damaged. I can work with that if I have to, but I’m hoping to have a shot at something more.

      I’m groping to see if there’s a legal theory under which I can sue “somebody” to stop implementation of Obmamacare (without regard to any damages yet suffered) simply because the law itself is facially unconstitutional. I can only imagine that such theory might exists, so I’m asking if anyone is actually aware of such theory.

  4. Brian

    November 7, 2013 at 7:35 PM


    You’ve got me interested in your approach. I can be reached at Hope to hear from you. Brian

    • Rahyah

      November 7, 2013 at 10:03 PM

      Whomever claims a law, constitution, bible, codes, regulations, and statutes as their own, must also accept liability for any harm caused thereby.

      As for any claim, that any such Constitutions are created to control the SERVANTS of man or woman, may hold true under various schemes wherever the Constitutor’s thereof, deem appropriate! Never think otherwise!

      You’d be a fool to think any Constitution is germane, that you didn’t have a hand in drafting or becoming signatory too or related, in some nexus (marriage, blood or adoption) via such signatories thereof! Especially, since the empirical evinces point to otherwise.

      Just read pages 13-16 of the Concordat Universal Declaration on the Four Freedoms and say it aint so….!!!!


      Just remember, you can fool all the people some of the time (as this blog proves), while fooling some of the people all the time (as this blog proves) but not all the people all the time (as this blog proves…lol).

      I just happen to be an individual who doesn’t accept what others do politically, when all that is necessary reasonably speaking, is to create variation by agreements, to avoid the pitfalls so many people are doomed to create or act upon (from the social engineering obtained in any formative years in public or private schools), who refuse to do, in like kind.

      So, go on and continue to believe whatever Constitution exists. Or, hat meets your hearts desire.

      But I will never support those who lie about political standing, abortion, racial bigotry or political enslavement to a system of governance, obviously created to enslave all walks of life under schemes of social engineering predicated upon perfidious lies. Not to mention how many lives have suffered under such schemes and indoctrination at the point of either death, slavery or imprisonment….PERIOD…!

      But for those who wish to believe even against the sanity of empirical evidence pointing to their demise, so be it!

      As it has been said, whatever you will it, so shall it be!

      I will continue to live in peace with my fellow good neighbors and seek out our breathren, wherever both ours and their honor allows. For the sake of 99 I leave to help the one perfectly suited for self-determination reasonably and similarly situated a s good neighbors.

      Hopefully, others will do in like kind themselves. Only time will tell, until otherwise proven more or less, what others deem more appropriate to their own conditions and those of their fellowman.

      I have already done my part holistically and prepared for the next stage of life happily, without limitations, restrictions or reservations, excepting on my terms eternally.

      Oh,….you mean you forgot, that everyone freely chooses their own eternal rewards? Say it ain’t so….lol. But if you do……..there goes free will….lol, and self-determination eternally.

      Are you sure this is what you believe?

      In conclusion, we extend our most kindest regards, which better serve those dedicated to Nature’s Law and Nature’s (Creator/Creative) Science of Right Reason, to which each are entitled equally similarly situated, for the sole purpose of sustainability, while remaining good neighbors and not otherwise!!!!.

      • doug

        November 9, 2013 at 6:12 AM

        Rahyah SAID :

        But I will never support those who lie about political standing, abortion, racial bigotry or political enslavement to a system of governance, obviously created to enslave all walks of life under schemes of social engineering predicated upon perfidious lies. Not to mention how many lives have suffered under such schemes and indoctrination at the point of either death, slavery or imprisonment….PERIOD…!

        Doug AGREES and proposes that you have said it ALL.

      • Cody

        November 9, 2013 at 9:51 AM

        Which “Constitution?”

  5. Jerry "Peacemaker"

    November 7, 2013 at 7:47 PM

    If the United States went with a single-payer health care system like the rest of the industrialized world, there would be no more debate. Insurance companies are irrelevant when it comes to people’s health.

  6. itsmymoney

    November 7, 2013 at 8:33 PM

    It would appear that the Supreme Court declared Obamacare Constitutional based upon it being an ‘excise’ (indirect tax class per Constitution), applicable due to many Americans being subject to the statutory “terms” of being in “employment”, being an “employee”, and receiving “wages” from your “employer”. All of this for signing and submitting that W-4, the basis upon which all of those “terms” are based, and which ‘authorizes’ the withholding of “wages”. It is a HUGE hurdle to climb, despite the coercion and/or ignorance put upon you by the commonly known (non-statutory) entity, your company/employer who ‘opts you in’.

    In other words, YOU (according to all the other parties) entered into the excise/indirect tax class by your ‘voluntary’ submission of that W-4. After all, an indirect tax class can only be voluntary in its participation. Otherwise it falls under the direct tax classification; the only other tax classification known to the Constitution. So, relevant to Obamacare, the ‘ruse’ being that since you are already that statutory “person”, the Obamacare tax falls under the excise/indirect tax classification.

    So in my view, as long as you are affiliated with your “employer” as an “employee” and receiving those “wages”, all of these ‘excise’ taxes can and will be imposed upon us by these thieves. If everyone would sue their company/employer for being coerced into the statutory-term hell that encompasses most of us, then things would change in a hurry. But that of course, is unrealistic.

    However, there is an alternative scenario to this ‘excise’ ruse of opting you in by way of those statutory terms…

    What would be the status of the independent contractor, who perhaps submits a 1099? He/she is NOT an “employee”, nor is in “employment” with an “employer” who pays “wages”. So, would the independent contractor then be exempt from the excise classification of the Obamacare tax?

    If that’s true, then if that individual was forced to opt in to Obamacare, wouldn’t that then be a direct tax upon that individual? In which case, for that to be Constitutional relative to simply a tax class discussion, a separate tax bill would have to be enacted where all independent contractors fall under this direct tax where the tax would need to be apportioned equally among the States of the Union. So most Americans (W-4) would fall under the ‘excise/indirect tax’ scam, and a minority (contractors) would fall under a direct tax class. All for the same ‘health care’ plan.

    Perhaps this conflict of Constitutional tax classification (indirect vs. direct) regarding the administering of Obamacare, relative to the examples given above, might have some merit to seeking an alternative legal theory in rendering Obamacare unconstitutional.

    Al, thanks for your work!



  7. Lyndon

    November 7, 2013 at 8:38 PM

    If “you” challenge an obligation to Obamacare, in statutory courts, “you” have lost without even starting because “you” are already accepting the govco’s jurisdiction over “you” (“you is plural). If the man doesn’t use a person to receive any benefit, then the man does not have anything to be concerned with because statutes do not apply to men anyway. Purchasing a driver’s license under duress does not put a man into the corporation’s jurisdiction. Paying property taxes under duress, or by appointing the municipality as your agent as your reason for paying, does not put a man into the corporation’s jurisdiction either. By the way, pay some property taxes. Those municipalities are protecting your property for you, are protecting its value for you, and are doing services for you. Just keep them under your agency.

    Remember, as men and women, you still live in a republic, and you still have your common law, and you may interact with this defacto, inherent, government as you choose to. Just be careful with your paperwork and keep them your servants. You never have to worry about their legislation at all. Stop using a person unconditionally and they won’t be bullying you around. A lot of this is easier than you think. Why concern yourself with Obamacare if “you” don’t serve as a government?

    • Cody

      November 9, 2013 at 9:57 AM

      The Republics were set aside by ’emergency rule’, invoked by Abe the Innocent. Further, most states have explicit abolitions against common law. Remember, most of those you perceive to be your “servants” are mindless thugs with sticks and guns, who are ready to show you who the boss is.

  8. Rahyah

    November 7, 2013 at 8:42 PM

    From any reasonable approach to either recognizing or otherwise, any claims however they may arise, must be dealt with continuously, if One doesn’t not wished to be consider thererunder.

    For these reasons, self-determination is the only safe harbor from any unjust or unwarranted encroaching claims or otherwise, wherever your natural e’states find themselves buttressing another so to speak. Such as any other jurisprudence respective thereto, which presumes otherwise, until self-determination reveals any sufficiency in the pleaders knowledge. See F.R.C.P., Rule 9 (a) & (b)

    But remember, just claiming any harm, whether predicated upon legislation passed or otherwise, such conditions must attached or be presumed to attach, that gives anyone the possibility to establish the irrefutable harm contemplated or contended. Any reasonable use of conveyance of such claims or harm, must contemplate actual damages. Do you need to have someone else tell you how much you could be damaged?

    If so, your already lost at sea….lol….!

    But, the reference made by those who are reasonably belligerent and willing & able to replevin their natural e’states pledged at their crowning nativity, by corrupted social engineering via so-called cestui que vie trust so to speak, must be ready to create or however, any wish to state the matter….must thereafter seek self-determination via variation by agreement with those who are striving to enslave you.

    Failing to do this…no matter what usages you wish to learn or exercise, will be for not…PERIOD!!!

    In addition, self-determination is the only reasonable recourse open to those willing to accept unlimited commercial liability to live by both their free law of polity and comity, not limited liability governed by the rules of others!

    For this reason and these reasons alone, have we sought such self-determination with all walks of life similarly situated as good neighbors and willing to live by their Honor accordingly.

    We have not found any other reasonable due course of action and we see no other, available to others any other way.

    In conclusion, here is a link, with information for those who wish to study our own choice to seek self-determination, that has provided us with sound principles and just accord, for any of us seeking self-determination or desiring to live honorably.


    Determine for yourselves today, what your future will be eternally! Do so, with every steppingstone you uncover. Prepare both yourselves and future generation’s of children awaiting such honorable stewardship, with the ability for self-determination on reasonable terms, best suited to those saving to suitors, which knowingly seeks peace above the fortunes of others. If you allow yourselves any reprieve in eternal vigilance, may it always be 6 hours after passing, before any seek to re-venue your next eternal stage of life, that awaits both the honorable and dishonorable.

  9. Lyndon

    November 7, 2013 at 9:14 PM


    If you haven’t suffered any harm then you have no business courting a man, woman, or corporation. That is our law.

    The constitution, the bible, all of the codes, regulations, and statues that have followed, are all there to govern the SERVANTS of man and woman. If you use those references, in THEIR courts, then you are one of THEM. That is our law.

    As simple as that.

    • Carole

      November 7, 2013 at 11:01 PM

      I agree, I think that most of us think that we have to study, study, study the Code, Regs, etc. I listened to all three oral sessions of the SC Arguments and my take is that the Justices never actually said that it is or isn’t constitutional. Since the constitution says “the right to contract shall not be infringed” and the 1040 is a signed contract, and since the penalties are imposed by that IRS form – if you choose – you lose.

      • Adask

        November 8, 2013 at 1:12 AM

        I disagree with the opinion that the 1040 is a “signed contract”. My understanding of “contracts” is that they memorialize a “meeting of the mindS”. Those two (or more) “mindS” are made evident by two (or more) signatures.

        The 1040 has only one signature. That tells me that there’s no “meeting of the mindS” and thus no contract. Instead, I believe that most or all single-signature documents (like the 1040, mortgages, drivers licenses and driver license applications, etc.) are unilateral PLEDGES rather than multi-party contracts.

      • doug

        November 9, 2013 at 6:47 AM

        Carol, you are so right on ! We start off thinking we must prepare a case, submit a perfect brief, and study, study, study … (and initially maybe we do) but one day after skull smashing study it dawns on us that the system and its OWNERS are diametrically opposed to everything I believe in yet want to have me financially support their international genocide. Screw em !

        The right to contract “IS” key because involuntary servitude is out but one can SIGN UP to be a slave … like get an SSN or a checking account or a voter registration a credit card a driver license … there’s 50 ways to leave your lover and a zillion ways to become a FEDERAL RESERVE slave !

        After watching “patriots” get their brains bashed out for 25 years after submitting in their defense some of the finest constitutional arguments supported by case law and etc., it became clear that something was amiss – simply put I decided that there wasn’t any constitution in their court and that most of us had signed up (contracted) for a new statutory jurisdiction owned and operated by the baby killing bankers colluding with political jackals.

        Good God, let me out of this MF’er, I ain’t no baby-killer !

        All fiction is fraud. All fraud is a lie that leads to death. Many keep their little toe in the fiction and they wind up in prison. Ya can’t be a little bit pregnant … or a little in the system.

        The last thing I’d like to say is that I noticed a lot of wannabe pettifoggers in the freedom movement just trying to impress their comrades with their genius !

  10. Vincent

    November 7, 2013 at 10:46 PM

    From what I understand, if you do not have enough income to file taxes then you by default won’t have to pay the tax for not having the health insurance. If you want to have insurance and make income in FRN and dollars then by all means they can regulate the insurance and/or tax you as an excise tax on your income for not having the insurance. Completely constitutional in my mind. I am no expert on Obamacare (I don’t think anyone is) so I maybe missing something in my understanding.

    There is also the exemption route under religious free exercise. I truly and sincerely believe all insurance goes against the teachings in the scripture of practicing strict liability. Therefore I can opt out of the insurance and the tax if I had enough income to file a tax return. The excise tax is tied to income, income is related to profit and gain in term of dollars and FRN. Insurance is a part of commerce and can be regulated.

    I think the whole plan is another method of controlling the people and getting more information from them and would love to see someone sue and get the plan shot down in the court system. I just don’t see a legal path to Obamacare being unconstitutional.

    I would love to find out more from another perspective.

    • doug

      November 9, 2013 at 6:54 AM

      Vincent SAID : I agree with your assessment for the most part, except that I will argue that the income tax is an excise tax on the corporate privilege of making income and profit in some form of commercial paper.

      Doug SAYS: The baby-killing bankers want you to pay for the usage of THEIR CURRENCY and CREDIT SYSTEM. PERIOD … and I am in complete agreement with your spot on assessment.

  11. Yartap

    November 7, 2013 at 11:13 PM

    Al, “Federal Question Doctrine” (28 U.S.C. 1331)? Also, I found the following Calipornia Bar Exam question with two answers which closely relate to the subject of ‘pre-injury suits.” Link the following:

    • Yartap

      November 8, 2013 at 3:02 AM

      Further, I have questioned the use of words by others in describing the Affordable Care Act’s mandate. It has been called “Individual Mandate EXCISE Tax” and “Employer Mandate Tax.”

      1. How can buying a health policy from a private insurance company be considered a TAX?

      2. Why is “buying” a policy called an EXCISE tax?

      3. Does a portion of the premium go to the government to make it a true EXCISE tax? I have looked at the Revenue Section of the Act and it does not place/include/require a tax/revenue (that I can find) in/upon the policies for individuals.

      4. Is it true, that an EXCISE tax is placed only upon goods (policies) and services?
      Because starting in 2018, Obamacare does place a 40% EXCISE tax on “Cadillac” health plans.

      5. Why does the Act place a “surtax” on incomes (called recoup) on Individuals for not getting/participating in heath care coverage and a “penalty” upon Employers for not getting/participating in heath care coverage?

      6. If a so called, EXCISE tax, is it “uniform throughout the United States;” as required by Article I, Section 8 (Congressional powers)? Or are the policies priced differently in each state by the same insurance provider?

      7. If “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken (except 16th Adm. Income taxation).”; does not this imply that an EXCISE tax would be and should be an Individual’s option to freely pay the tax by his or her purchase of a good or service?
      8. Finally, Congress has the power “To raise and support Armies,” therefore it is required for one to participate by mandate; but does Congress have the power to mandate for one to buy insurance, if it is not related to military service?

      WARNING! Title 42 U.S.C. 18115 – FREEDOM TO NOT PARTICIPATE IN FEDERAL HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAMS. Many are not reading and understanding the wording of this code. It is only related to an “issuer” of group or individual health insurance coverage and not an individual purchaser of insurance or group purchasers of insurance.

      • Vincent

        November 8, 2013 at 1:58 PM

        The tax is an excise tax on your income for not buying an approved insurance policy. To my knowledge there is no tax when you buy an approved plan which you have to choice to do or not do. The legally regulated insurance industry will pass taxes and extra costs on them to their customers. All taxes through the IRS are excise taxes on income. Without income there is no tax.

      • Yartap

        November 8, 2013 at 3:32 PM

        Hi Vincent,

        No – an individual who does not participate or buy a health plan is charged a “surtax” on his income or extra income tax. This will be taken out/deducted from his or her income tax refund. An employer with 50 or more employees, who does not participate on behalf of his employees are “penalized”/fined for each and every employee not insured. The “surtax” on an individuals incomes is basically legal, except it is tied to a “non-tax” mandate. The “penalties” on employers is basically legal due to the interstate commerce clause. These penalties are debatable, too.

        An excise tax is placed upon a purchased good or service provided from a private source. Examples: excise taxes included in the prices of purchased fuels, fish equipment, some tanning equipment, some foods, some documents and etc.

        Obamacare does place many excise taxes upon many products (like medicine and medical equipment), which is legal and proper. But there is not a “true” excise tax applied to the health policies offered to people. Rather, it is an un-constitutional mandate, plain and simple

        And here is another question:

        9. We should all know that it is only an excise tax and an income tax that can be applied as a “direct” tax to be legal, so why does Obamacare call it an Excise tax and not an Income tax?

        For right now, it is my best guess that the huge cost of Obamacare, if placed as an income tax would expose the huge cost. Keeping them separate creates out of sight- out of mine, like SoSo security hides the true cost from employees. Plus, employers are required to add to gross incomes of employees any benefits the employee receives from using the health plans on their W-2. Thus, the employee pays for the plan and then pays again for the received benefits as income to his or her gross income.

        Your friend, Yartap.

      • Vincent

        November 8, 2013 at 5:53 PM


        I agree with your assessment for the most part, except that I will argue that the income tax is an excise tax on the corporate privilege of making income and profit in some form of commercial paper. The amount or reasons for the way the IRS comes up with a total for your tax due is arbitrary and can legally change at any time, for example the “surtax” for non-participation in a program. I don’t think the income tax would have been constitutional if it was not a excise tax, and I don’t think it would be constitutional with out social security in place to basically force everyone/thing making profit and gain into a Government benefit program. There is a reason you must have a social security number (as a person) to file and pay the income tax.

        Please expand on “But there is not a “true” excise tax applied to the health policies offered to people. Rather, it is an un-constitutional mandate, plain and simple”

        I don’t understand why there would have to be an excise tax applied to the health policies. What part of the mandate is unconstitutional exactly?

        To your question #9: If the income tax were a direct tax it would be unconstitutional because it is not based a head count of the people, but rather income.

        Thank you for your insight and wisdom.


      • Yartap

        November 8, 2013 at 8:51 PM

        Hi again Vincent and thanks for the reply.

        I see and agree with your argument about the commercial paper and the use of Social Security to gather consent for taxing incomes. As I read the Affordable Care Act, I have not gotten into the definitions as of yet, and I do need to do that. So I’m going upon my definitions which can cause problems in understanding. I’m also reading the Supreme Court’s decision which seems, so far, to not address the mandate as much as the legality of the surtax and penalty.

        My statement: “But there is not a “true” excise tax applied to the health policies offered to people. Rather, it is an un-constitutional mandate, plain and simple.”

        The reason I made this statement is that I am coming from a layman’s understanding of what an excise tax is: a voluntary tax by purchase (I can freely pay the tax by purchase or not pay the tax by not purchasing). This is the layman’s understanding and definition. We must force the government back into this definition and understanding of excise taxation. A tax placed upon a product or service.

        But being forced to buy a product under treat of penalty erodes the meaning of excise taxation and places more unjustified power in the hands of the government. Take away the surtax and penalty from the law and the law becomes just a “mandate,” and not an excise tax, per say. The government does not have that authority to mandate. But, I do confer that the government has used the general welfare clause to increase its powers, but only in wrong manners. Thus, I believe a mandate from the government to buy any thing that is not related to its listed Art. I, Section 8 powers is unconstitutional.

        I will respectfully disagree to your answer of question #9. The income tax is a direct tax placed upon individuals who volunteer for the benefits of S.S., singly or couples jointly. The 16th Adm. says “from whatever source derived,” which means the “source” will be directly from each individual taxpayer and not the State (without apportionment or enumeration).

        Thanks Vincent,


  12. Joe L'Amarca

    November 7, 2013 at 11:14 PM

    open up the Ten Articles Of The Bill Of Rights and find where they make the statement about the obahamaaaaacare plan ? if you cant find it its unconstitutional or dont you know anything about rights ?
    But if they fine you or tax you assert your seventh Article of the Bill of Rights and sue that him and his cronies . and because it is a criminal prosecution dont forget the Grand Jury .

  13. Martens

    November 7, 2013 at 11:30 PM

    About 4 months ago, the Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare is a tax. Plus, the IRS is who collects the penalty for failing to sign up. So whatever arguments have been working against the IRS and their taxes should also work against Obamacare.

    • Adask

      November 9, 2013 at 1:26 PM

      Insofar as Obamacare is now intimately linked to the IRS, it’s likely that whatever arguments work against the IRS should also work against Obamacare.

      And, conversely, whatever arguments you have against Obamacare should also work against the income tax. I’ll say more on that in a future article.

  14. palani

    November 8, 2013 at 8:50 AM

    Make them an offer. I made mine in the form of a $21 silver dollar bond years ago. Treasury and their revenue agents at the federal and state level accepted that offer. If you want to seal your offer then complete administrative procedure (fault and default). After doing so you are presumed to have a contract. These government departments and their agents are all great at accepting your offers but unfortunately we are less than consistent about holding their feet to the fire when they fail to perform.

    Unless you can claim to represent millions of people there is no remedy in this solution for anyone other than the one submitting the offer. Possibly you might convince AARP or Gun Owners of America or Oathkeepers to engage in such a contract and get into breach of contract on a class action level.

  15. Zeke

    November 8, 2013 at 1:44 PM

    I’d be interested to know what you believe to be strong evidence that Obamacare may be unconstitutional.

    If that evidence was an indication that the “law” was bad or evil, it still may be constitutional. The income tax act, the federal reserve act, and Obamacare are all evil, yet constitutional. The remedy is to not participate.

    We quit going to doctors and hospitals back in the 60’s when we found the medical profession to be anti-health and pushing poisons. I won’t be signing up.

    • Pat Fields

      November 9, 2013 at 2:59 PM

      Zeke, the ‘reason’ the Acts you list are ‘Constitutional’ is because, as provided at Art. IV, Sec. 3, cl. 2, they’re exercised and apply only under the 12 Congressional District jurisdictions, which NO ONE challenges but rather tacitly aquiese to.

      • Zeke

        November 11, 2013 at 3:37 PM

        Pat, by “tacitly acquiesce”, do you mean volunteer? I think that is what makes most of the corporate bills and resolutions from congress (legislative power), constitutional. These can be challenged with the judicial power, but only by an individual, in court in a specific fact challenge, in my opinion.

      • Pat Fields

        November 20, 2013 at 3:40 AM

        Zeke, no … by tacitly acquiesce I mean to presume, through failure to challenge, that a jurisdiction claimed by the opposing party stands, but then treat it in argument as ‘original and ordinary’. It’s no wonder that so many causes are found to be ‘frivolous’. Despite the thoroughly illogical contention that blatantly un-Constitutional claims are put forth in courts … yet upheld, … very few folks ‘think out of the box’ to consider that the claims are put under a jurisdiction in which they ARE Constitutional. By the constructive organization of the American system, that can ONLY be under a jurisdiction exclusive to Congress and thus a matter under ‘4, 3, 2’ … whereby there are NO constitutions.

        And, yes, I agree that challenge has to be mounted by the complainant, personally.

  16. itsmymoney

    November 8, 2013 at 4:36 PM

    Al Adask said…

    “I disagree with the opinion that the 1040 is a “signed contract”. My understanding of “contracts” is that they memorialize a “meeting of the mindS”. Those two (or more) “mindS” are made evident by two (or more) signatures.”

    Al, you may want to look up the great work done by Mr. John Benson. He has traced the history of our tax laws all the way back to the English laws upon which our Founders based our laws. One of those tax laws is called a ‘Statute Staple contract’, of which Mr Benson equates to the modern-day 1040 ‘contract’. It is compelling evidence, backed by GovCo testimony in the Supreme Court case ‘G.M. Leasing v. United States (1977)’, where GovCo itself cites ‘Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co. (1856)’ as the standard for all IRS procedures. An excerpt from Mr. Benson’s book…

    “In G.M. Leasing v. United States (1977), the government stated to the U.S. Supreme Court that all Internal Revenue Service (IRS) procedures are based upon the standards set forth by the Supreme Court in Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co. (1856).
    In Murray’s Lessee, the Court ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution required that all summary or administrative processes and procedures used by the federal government to ascertain, assess and collect its revenues must mirror, or be no different in principle from, the processes and procedures employed by the king of England in 1791 (the year the Fifth Amendment was ratified) to collect debts owed to him.

    After reading Murray, G.M. Leasing, and the government’s admission to the Supreme Court in 1977, I came to realize that all IRS processes and procedures are, in substance and effect, simply the ancient English revenue processes and procedures employed by the king’s revenue
    officials in the Exchequer (Treasury) in 1791 dressed up in modern garb. To be sure, the words used are different and not intended to be easily understood. However, as the Murray Court stated clearly, “The name bestowed upon it cannot affect its constitutional validity.” 59 U.S. 272, 276 (1856).”

    • Adask

      November 9, 2013 at 1:38 AM

      I haven’t read the G.M. Leasing vs US case of 1977, so I’m just spit-ballin’ here.

      But it occurs to me that if “the Court ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution required that all summary or administrative processes and procedures used by the federal government to ascertain, assess and collect its revenues must mirror, or be no different in principle from, the processes and procedures employed by the KING of England in 1791 (the year the Fifth Amendment was ratified) to collect debts owed to him, then if follows that the IRS operates on the presumption that it is or represents the “king”/sovereign and the US taxpayers (just like the English taxpayers) must be deemed to be SUBJECTS.

      If so, then it would seem to follow that if you can establish that you are a “sovereign” (as declared by the Supreme Court in Chisholm v Georgia in A.D. 1793) rather than a “subject,” the IRS “administrative” and “summary” processes might not apply to you.

      • itsmymoney

        November 9, 2013 at 8:20 PM

        Al, I agree with your observation of this as such. If, as in the present day law of being ‘subject to a tax’, then you must be inherently a SUBJECT in that regard and as relative to the former law in England. If you are a present day “sovereign” unto your State of the Union, then in practice (and law) you should not be ‘subject to’ or be the SUBJECT of any Federal jurisdiction in that regard. I will research the ‘Chisholm’ case, as you have pointedly referenced. Thanks!

  17. David

    November 8, 2013 at 4:57 PM

    I cannot recall the exact case, but the Supreme Court just last year or the year before threw out a case brought by a citizen plaintiff who was not damaged but complained that a law was unconstitutional. They ruled that the plaintiff had no standing to sue, because the plaintiff is not a party to the Constitution. (!!) The Constitution is a compact between the states.

    Unfortunately, even if a plaintiff brought a claim of being damaged that could make it to the Supreme Court, the Court has a doctrine of avoiding making a ruling on the constitutionality of a statute, if it can find some other way to make a ruling. And as we saw with the “it’s an excise tax” ruling on the Obama-care individual mandate, the Court will seemingly do triple back flips to find a way to void ruling an act of Congress unconstitutional.

    This avoidance of constitutional considerations happened with the gay marriage decision this year, when the Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff had no standing to sue, therefore side-stepping an examination of any of the merits of the case.

    At any rate, the Obama-care mandate is constitutional because it is a contract that builds upon the “taxpayer” contract. A “taxpayer” is one who is (has voluntarily made himself) subject to an internal revenue tax. All internal revenue taxes are indirect excise taxes. Many people assume they are direct taxes (applicable to essentially everyone) without apportionment required. Not so.

    Because it is predicated on “taxpayer” status, the Obama-care penalty is also an excise tax, but not exactly for the reasons given by the Supreme Court. Their decision seems to imply that anybody who does not buy insurance is subject to this excise tax. Not so. The language of the statute makes clear that it applies to “taxpayers” based on the amount of their “income”.

    The Court refused to find that the penalty for not buying insurance is permissible under the commerce clause (in other words they could not justify ruling that the law could apply to the general public within the states). Rather, they had to resort to the exclusive legislative authority of Congress over federal territory and property (e.g. over any “taxpayer”). Fortunately for them the vast majority of Americans are duped into believing everyone is subject to the Obama-care law, just as they ignorantly believe the income tax code applies to everyone.

  18. David

    November 8, 2013 at 5:08 PM

    Quick addition to my comments. Re: “employer” penalties for not participating in Obama-care, this too is constitutional, but only because the term “employer” with respect to Internal Revenue Code is limited to a federal employer.

    “Employer” is of course assumed by most people to mean anybody who has other people working for them. Thus most payroll taxes and withholding are nothing more than “ignorance” taxes. Maybe getting soaked by Obama-care provisions will encourage more employers to learn about the law and realize they are NOT actually “employers” and that they are unnecessarily paying payroll taxes, and robbing their own workers through tax withholding.

    • itsmymoney

      November 8, 2013 at 8:36 PM

      David, well done, as I too referenced the statutory definitions of “employee” and “employer” in a previous post above. The insidious ruse of the ‘income’ tax scheme relative to a company/corporation being a statutory “employer” is in fact this: if said company/corp is NOT legally a federal instrumentality as such, then by signing and submitting a W-4 Form, YOU ‘volunteer’ yourself as a statutory “employee” whereby you then presumptively ‘authorize’ or ‘designate’ your company as a statutory “employer”, therefore ‘authorizing’ them to withhold your pay-for-labor as “wages” which is taxable as an excise ‘income’ tax.

      Remember, the statutory definition of “employer” is solely predicated on the definition of who the “employee” is. You would think it’s the other way around (i.e. “employer” defines “employee”) but it’s not. However, even though you ‘volunteer’ yourself the “employee”, it still does not legally make a private-sector company an “employer” in the sense of being a true Federal instrumentality. This is actually illegal (posing as a Federal instrumentality) but who cares about the law?

      If we could all sue our non-statutory employers for coercion and perhaps discrimination (for excluding those who do NOT wish to enter into a 3rd-party contract with GovCo), then perhaps we could crush this insidious scheme much faster than we will. The private-sector companies are wittingly (via fear) or unwittingly (via ignorance) complicit in this scheme. Regardless, shameful.

      We The People

      • Rahyah

        November 11, 2013 at 3:54 PM

        To: itsmymoney,

        You are correct. But as we know, it is necessary to use W-4 Forms presently, which still allows choice of anyone in the private sector, to exempt oneself, from the use of private credit (FRns) or Statutory Funds (lawful money) as an acceptable form of livelihood in exchange for one’s property. Read 2012 u.s. treasury audit of the NY FED.

        As Al Adask would put it presumably, the W-4 ‘memorialize a “meeting of the mind”, respective to the form of acceptable payment.

        If you fail to exempt any other form, you have not lawfully acquiesced. but legally acquiesced.

        All that is necessary, when presenting any exemption to potential private sector needs in exchange for your property (labor), if any question comes up per say, is to present them with 26 U.S.C. 6331(a) & 12 U.S.C. 411. Once this form of payment exemption is claimed, failure by any agency to abide as informed, is actionable in Admiralty, saving to suitors. 28 USC 1331 & 1782 as a libel of review.

        Most graciously,…. ‘In Honor We Trust.’

    • Pat Fields

      November 9, 2013 at 2:47 PM

      David, as I understand the liability question, it’s biffurcation of one’s self into ‘Taxpayer’ and ‘Tax Collector’ through ‘Self Assessment’. What put me on that trail was the fact that the legal process in litigating against the presumptive ‘Tax Collector’, allows for pre-emptive lien and confiscation of property without Jury Verdict, whereas the ‘Taxpayer’ rather DOES have full Due Process available as of Right.

  19. Yartap

    November 8, 2013 at 11:08 PM

    I find it interesting in reading many of the writs of certiorari from the Supreme Court on Obamacare.

    In one, the lower court said that the government could not use the Commerce Clause because the government was not allowed to “create” commerce by mandating the purchase of insurance; and another said that the government could not use the Power to Tax because basically it was not a tax, but rather, a mandate.

  20. Sarah Jean

    November 9, 2013 at 11:04 AM

    construction, creation and requirements for creating a bill.
    the congress has to keep a log of events I would think that includes time and dates, “adjournment”
    tedious research. If the “bill” did not follow the rules for becoming a ‘law’ then I guess it is invalid until a remedy?
    Oh I found this somewhere about the Supreme courts decision;
    “Finally, the joint dissent argued that since the ACA exceeded its constitutional powers in both compelling the purchase of health insurance and in denying non-consenting States Medicaid funding, the whole statute should have been deemed inoperative because the two parts were central to the statute’s design and operation.[50] The joint dissent mentioned that “the Constitution requires tax increases to originate in the House of Representatives” per the Origination Clause,[51] though that issue was not addressed by the majority opinion.[52]” The last part about origination caught my attention…
    I apologize for my derailed thought processes just wanted to share..oh and not sure about equitable estoppel? huh what.

    Equitable estoppel (American law)[edit
    American equitable estoppel is the counterpart to estoppel by representation, and its elements are summarized as:[17]
    facts misrepresented or concealed
    knowledge of true facts
    fraudulent intent
    inducement and reliance
    injury to complainant
    clear, concise, unequivocal proof of actus (not by implication)

    Well this whole item of health acts seems to be nothing more than a Trojan horse.. I feel this only because of Pelosi’s spit “just pass it then you can read it” Well that means accepting this item with its crushing contents only Benefits the one presenting it not necessarily intending harm but that being a consequence:

    Bullying is the use of force, threat, or coercion to abuse, intimidate, or aggressively to impose domination over others.
    sorry for the scatter brain thoughts..just trying to offer different trails to travel

  21. Pat Fields

    November 9, 2013 at 2:36 PM

    Quo Warranto? But then, if you claim Socialist Security, allow your Lawful Permanent Domicil to lay in the DC city-state as a ‘citizen of the United States’, evidence conduct of your affairs under Congressional District jurisdiction, hold yourself liable to the income taxes by acting in separate Person of a federal Tax Collector, ‘Drive’ under ‘License’ to ‘Traffic’ in inter-state commerce … then pursuit of the Writ would be held as ‘Frivolous’.

    • palani

      November 9, 2013 at 7:08 PM


      Maybe if you take up farming as defined in the 14c?

      farmer (n.)
      late 14c., “one who collects taxes, etc.,” from Anglo-French fermer, French fermier, from Medieval Latin firmarius, from firma (see farm (n.)). In the agricultural sense, 1590s, replacing native churl and husbandman.

  22. Jethro!

    November 11, 2013 at 1:37 PM

    Al, to your original question… I believe that perhaps the only ‘offensive’ suit you could file on relation to Barrycare would a >>declaratory judgment<<. However, it would have to be in a (several) State court since 28 USC 2201(a) specifically bars declaratory judgments "with respect to Federal taxes" in "Federal" court, and Barrycare is just a tax. (Either that, or a "non-28 USC" federal court would have to be carefully invoked).

    A declaratory judgment would seem appropriate because 1) Barrycare has already been deemed generally constitutional (for taxpayers), rendering a general constitutional challenge futile, and 2) you wouldn't have standing (an injury) for any other claim. But since Barrycare may not apply to *you*, asking a court to "declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party" may be appropriate.

  23. Zeke

    November 11, 2013 at 3:27 PM

    Quo Warranto, Declaratory Relief and Injunction are equitable remedies and are all viable remedies. An action at law would require damages which you probably haven’t incurred. If one really wanted to pursue the matter, I would do all three of the above.

    It appears the Obamacare is based upon the power of the IRS which is an Executive Agency with limited powers. Their power is strictly derived from statutory functions that require the collection of, in this instance, “income” tax. That would be the tax on “income” from whatever source derived. If there is no income, there is no tax, and therefore no forced Obamacare.

    I personally would not be able to bring any type of suite because I do not have “income” and therefore would not be damaged or injured by the Obamacare scheme. The secret is to know that only corporations can have income. However, you need to be able to answer the IRS when they tell you that they believe the 1099’s that have been issued are income, so what do you say they are? If you don’t respond, the IRS will consider them income!

    • Cody

      November 14, 2013 at 12:04 AM

      I like it. Except, since income is “from whatever source derived” does not specify from whomever and wherever the source is derived. Maybe, the vagary of the definition of income allows them to define a tax as income upon those whom the tax is levied.

      • Pat Fields

        November 19, 2013 at 6:58 AM

        Cody, sources are delineated in the code. True, income is not, but that leaves the natural meaning of … gain or profit. Since banknotes are loaned as principal and NEVER ‘sold’ outright, they remain the Private (intellectual) Property of the issuer. So, every banknote used is someone else’s property, on which a portion of interest (fee) is owed … and … since government ‘guarantees’ (merely the numbers on the Notes, but NOT their exchange or Purchasing value) a tax is due on that ‘service’.

        Of more use is the maxim that all Law is Municipal to jurisdiction and upon members of the municipality, however far or long they range in sojourn.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s