2 Responses to “stop this Ponzi scheme, billions of dollars are stolen from hard working Americans to pay off a couple of largest insurance companies, this is worse than mafia. The same scheme was pulled with reimbursing big banks for bad morgegies, that is why banks refused to renegotiate mortgages. We need to remove from power and criminally prosecute this organized crime”

1. Cris Ericson
   November 18th, 2013 @ 1:12 pm

   Hi! I am wondering if President Obama can just ask Attorney General Eric Holder to charge him
   (President Barack Obama) with serious and
   willful and intentional violations of
   Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 for fraud in
   a fiduciary capacity, and immediately plead nolo contendere, no contest, and then immediately grant himself (President Barack Obama) a pardon? Can all of this be done in five minutes in front of a Federal Court?
   How can President Obama be Impeached if he gets charged with crimes, admits guilt or nolor contendere, no contest, and then immediately issues himself a Pardon? How could the U.S. Congress Impeach him then?

2. Cris Ericson
   November 18th, 2013 @ 1:35 pm

   Does President Barack Obama have the right to
   “unilaterally” change a law?

   What does “unilateral” mean?

   A unilateral contract occurs when it is so one-sided
   that the other party did not have a fair input, and it
   is forced upon them without their willing consent
   or the ability for their side to make changes,
   making it a unilateral contract under duress.

   Is “Obamacare”, the Affordable Care Act, a “contract”?

   A contact is an agreement between competent parties, upon
   a legal consideration, to do
   or to abstain from doing some act.
   When the U.S. Congress passes a Bill and the President
   of the United States of America signs it into law,
   there is an “implied contract” with the Citizens of the
   United States that they will follow that law
   and that law will be upheld in Court.

   The Affordable Care Act requires citizens to comply
   with it, or pay a penalty, which the U.S. Supreme Court
   calls a “tax.”

   The Affordable Care Act does not comply with U.C.C.
   Uniform Commercial Codes, and it is therefore voidable
   and rescindable because it is a unilateral contract,
   with one sided changes, forcing the public to comply
   under duress.

   This issue was raised in the news Nov. 14, 2013.
   Brief Excerpts From TheBlaze Inc:
   ” President Barack Obama has unilaterally altered the law
   to delay the insurance mandate for businesses
   and make changes for lawmakers
   so they aren’t subject to the same health care regulations
   as the rest of the American people….
   On Thursday, Obama announced that he would be
   making yet another change to the law…
   Does the president of the United States have the legal
   or constitutional authority
   to unilaterally change laws
   passed by Congress?”

   https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/11/14/obamacare-fix-cancelled-insurance/3543021/
   Interview of Christine Eibner by David Mastio
   6:44 p.m. EST November 14, 2013
   “In retrospect,
   communicating more clearly
   that there would be a small segment of the population
   that would be
   unable
   to retain their coverage,
   and articulating why these plans would
   not
   be available,
   might have helped.
   Maybe there would have been a way to make the transition
   easier by phasing the individual market reforms in more gradually
   …. People who were familiar with the law and
   health insurance markets understood
   that not everyone would be able to retain their plan….
   President Obama and other backers of the
   Affordable Care Act said clearly that those who
   “liked their plan could keep their plan,”

   The above statement published by
   USA Today makes it clear
   that some people knew that
   President Obama was NOT
   telling the truth, and that there was a general
   conspiracy of those who knew that people
   would lose their insurance plans
   which proves that the Affordable Care Act
   (ACA) did not comply with the (U.C.C.)
   Uniform Commercial Code
   requiring that all parties to an agreement
   understand the agreement, have a
   “meeting of the minds” and that it is
   fair and not one-sided.

   It is “implied” in the law that when we elect
   representatives to the U.S. Congress
   that we will obey the laws they pass.
   That is the “contract” between we, the people,
   and our elected government.

   Well, where can we find some answers?

   Did any of our elected officials,
   including President Barack Obama,
   commit fraud by making a false statement
   that materially affected citizens’ health care
   insurance?

   How many U.S. Senators and U.S. Congressmen
   and U.S. Congresswomen received a paycheck
   of about $175,000.00 per year and cashed it and
   then failed to perform the work they were paid for
   by NOT READING THE 2,000 PAGE
   “Obamacare” (ACA) Affordable Care Act?

   If YOU were paid $175,000.00 a year to do a job,
   and you did NOT do your work,
   would that be “fraud” in a fiduciary capacity?

   What is a fiduciary capacity?

   A “fiduciary” is a term for someone who has a duty
   to act for the benefit of someone else.
   Every time we elect someone to office, and hand over
   our taxpayer dollars to them to do a job,
   they are acting in a fiduciary capactiy.

   Let’s first take a look at Title 18 United States Code Section 1001,
   Chapter 47 Fraud and False Statements

   https://uscode.house.gov/
   TITLE 18 United States Code
   PART I
   CHAPTER 47
   Section § 1001
   18 USC 1001: Statements or entries generally
   Text contains those laws in effect on November 13, 2013
   From Title 18-CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
   PART I-CRIMES
   CHAPTER 47-FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS
   §1001. Statements or entries generally
   (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section,
   whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction
   of the executive,
   legislative,
   or judicial branch of the Government of the United States,
   knowingly and willfully-
   (1) falsifies,
   conceals,
   or covers up
   by any trick,
   scheme,
   or device
   a material fact;
   (2) makes any materially false,
   fictitious,
   or fraudulent statement
   or representation;
   or
   (3) makes or uses any false writing
   or document
   knowing the same to contain
   any materially false,
   fictitious,
   or fraudulent statement or entry;
   shall be fined under this title,
   imprisoned not more than 5 years
   or, if the offense involves internationa
   l or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331),
   imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.
   If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117,
   or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed
   under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
   (b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a
   party to a judicial proceeding,
   or that party’s counsel,
   for statements, representations, writings
   or documents submitted by such party
   or counsel to a judge
   or magistrate in that proceeding.
   (c) With respect to any matter within
   the jurisdiction
   of the legislative branch,
   subsection
   (a) shall apply only to-
   (1) administrative matters,
   including a claim for payment,
   a matter related to the procurement of property
   or services,
   personnel or employment practices,
   or support services,
   or a document required by law,
   rule,
   or regulation to be submitted to the Congress
   or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
   (2) any investigation or review,
   conducted pursuant to the authority
   of any committee
   , subcommittee,
   commission or office of the Congress,
   consistent with applicable rules
   of the House or Senate.

   Short Title of 1998 Amendments
   Pub. L. 105–318, §1, Oct. 30, 1998, 112 Stat. 3007, provided that:
   “This Act [amending sections 982, 1028, and 2516 of this title and section 105 of the
   Ethics in Government Act
   of 1978, Pub. L. 95–521, set out in the Appendix to
   Title 5, Government Organization
   and Employees, and enacting provisions set out
   as notes under section 1028 of this title and section 994
   of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure]
   may be cited as the ‘Identity Theft and
   Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998’.”

   Short Title of 1996 Amendment
   Pub. L. 104–292, §1, Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3459, provided that:
   “This Act [amending this section, sections 1515 and 6005 of this title,
   and section 1365 of Title 28,
   Judiciary and Judicial Procedure] may be cited as the
   ‘False Statements Accountability Act of 1996’.”

   Short Title of 1994 Amendment
   Pub. L. 103–322, title XXIX, §290001(a), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2097,
   as amended by Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §604(b)(34), Oct. 11, 1996,
   110 Stat. 3508, provided that:
   “This section [amending section 1030 of this title]
   may be cited as the
   ‘Computer Abuse
   Amendments Act of 1994’.”

   Short Title of 1990 Amendment
   Pub. L. 101–647, title XXV, §2500, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4859,
   provided that: “This title [see Tables for classification] may be cited
   as the
   ‘Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud
   Prosecution and
   Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990’.”

   Short Title of 1989 Amendment
   Pub. L. 101–123, §1, Oct. 23, 1989, 103 Stat. 759, provided that:
   “This Act [amending section 1031 of this title,
   repealing section 293 of this title, enacting provisions
   set out as notes under sections 293 and 1031
   of this title, and repealing provisions
   set out as a note under section 293 of this title]
   may be cited as the
   ‘Major Fraud Act Amendments of 1989’.”

   –>Contract Disputes, Title 41 USCS Public Contracts
   Chapter 9 Section 601(7) the term
   “misrepresentation of fact” means a false statement of
   substantive fact, or any conduct which leads to a belief
   of a substantive fact material to proper understanding
   of the matter in hand, made with intent to deceive or mislead.

   –>Question: Is the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”)
   a “public contract” because if you don’t buy health
   insurance you have to pay a fine, and the U.S. Supreme
   Court determined that fine is equivalent to a “tax”;
   so therefore, the law is constructed to generate a “tax”
   and so is it a “contract”?

Leave a Reply