Showing posts with label Mandate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mandate. Show all posts

Thursday, March 6, 2014

Bill to Make the Fine $0 for Violating the Individual Mandate Passes by 90 Votes


posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 12:32 PM


William Shakespeare said – a rose by any other name will still smell as sweet. This is a very simple, yet profound statement. The fine for not paying the individual mandate is not a fine at all, but a tax. You can call it what you want, but a rose is a rose, and a tax is a tax – even if they attempt to call it a “fine”.

The AHC bill was a unlawful bill, as it was proposed in a section of the government that is not responsible for creating a tax. The supreme court upheld the notion that it was a “fine” and not a “tax” because they are all puppets of the governing administration. This is simple politics at play, and it is nothing new.


There is nothing new under the sun, and this song and dance will continue until the end of time – so long as there is politics.


As citizens of the United States, we must make an effort to vote and educate people to the rule of law – and educate them primarily on what they can do to make the world a better place. Right now we have people doing what they want to do, simply because the majority are too ignorant to know what our ruler’s limits are. If the people truly knew what was constitutional and what was not they would not have the same passé attitude they have right now about the directions we are headed down.


But people are willfully ignorant – and they remain that way until something seriously hampers their daily lives. And by that time it is usually too late to do anything.


tax


noun


noun: tax; plural noun: taxes


1. a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers’ income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.


edit on 6-3-2014 by MentorsRiddle because: (no reason given)





AboveTopSecret.com New Topics In Breaking Political News



Bill to Make the Fine $0 for Violating the Individual Mandate Passes by 90 Votes

Monday, January 13, 2014

TYT Network Reports - Is Your Driving Private? Not After The Block Box Mandate

At Not Just The News, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Not Just The News and how it is used.


Log Files


Like many other Web sites, Not Just The News makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.


Cookies and Web Beacons


Not Just The News does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.


DoubleClick DART Cookie


  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Not Just The News.

  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Not Just The News and other sites on the Internet.

  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Not Just The News send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.


Not Just The News has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.


You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Not Just The News"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.


If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.



TYT Network Reports - Is Your Driving Private? Not After The Block Box Mandate

Tuesday, December 31, 2013

Justice Delays Birth Control Mandate For Catholic Groups


A Supreme Court justice has blocked implementation of portions of President Obama’s health care law that would have forced some religion-affiliated organizations to provide health insurance for employees that includes birth control.


Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s decision came Tuesday night after a different effort by Catholic-affiliated groups from around the nation. Those groups rushed to the federal courts to stop Wednesday’s start of portions of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.


Sotomayor acted on a request from an order of Catholic nuns in Colorado, whose request for a stay had been denied by the lower courts.


Sotomayor is giving the government until Friday morning to respond to her decision.




News



Justice Delays Birth Control Mandate For Catholic Groups

Supreme Court issues emergency stay halting birth control mandate for Catholic groups


By Scott Kaufman
Tuesday, December 31, 2013 22:26 EST


supreme-court-2010-wikimedia







  • Print Friendly and PDF

  • Email this page


  • According to the Associated Press, a Supreme Court justice has issued an emergency stay to halt the birth control mandate for Catholic organizations.


    Catholic organizations had petitioned the Supreme Court to stop those elements of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that would have forced them to provide health insurance that included birth control coverage.


    The organizations asked the Court to issue the stay until they had a chance to make their argument before the Court. The full court has already agreed to hear constitutional challenges of the birth-control mandate, which will occur at a later time. According to SCOTUSBlog, those cases have not yet been scheduled for oral argument.


    These organizations claim that the ACA infringes on their freedom to practice their religion because the law requires they provide the use of contraceptives, which the Church forbids.


    The portions of the ACA to which these Catholic organizations objected would have gone into effect on Wednesday, January 1, 2014.


    ["Supreme Court" via Wikimedia Commons]

    Scott Kaufman


    Scott Kaufman


    Scott Eric Kaufman is the proprietor of the AV Club’s Internet Film School and, in addition to Raw Story, also writes for Lawyers, Guns & Money. He earned a Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of California, Irvine in 2008.








    The Raw Story



    Supreme Court issues emergency stay halting birth control mandate for Catholic groups

Monday, December 30, 2013

Howard Dean: Individual Mandate Not Necessary, Will Hurt Democrats





JOE KERNEN: Howard, you’re also expressing concern about — I guess we know that young people, young healthy people, you’re probably not getting enough of them at this point, right?


HOWARD DEAN: It doesn’t really matter that much. Honestly, the actuarial data — this is about the individual mandate. I happen to agree with Joe, the individual mandate was not necessary and it’s probably a big political thing. And that is going to hurt the Democrats because people don’t like to be told what to do by the government no matter what party they’re in. But the truth is, that wasn’t necessary, and the insurance companies like it because it does bring young, healthy people who aren’t likely to get sick into the system. But in our experience, here, although it’s with young people under 18, not with everybody is that the individual mandate is really not that necessary. And the actual data is — does not lead to the conclusion that you’re going to have huge cost overruns for the insurance companies.




RealClearPolitics Video Log



Howard Dean: Individual Mandate Not Necessary, Will Hurt Democrats

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

CNN"s Cuomo Dismisses Challenge to Birth Control Mandate as "Growing Distraction" From Fixing ObamaCare


CNN’s Chris Cuomo called the legal challenge to ObamaCare’s birth control mandate a “growing distraction from dealing with the problems of ObamaCare” on Wednesday’s New Day.


It also raises the question at what point do you stop challenging the law? At what point do you accept that this was passed, it was tested by the Supreme Court?” he asked. “To me, it’s a growing distraction from dealing with the problems of Obamacare.” [Video below the break. Audio here.]


Opponents of the mandate insist the case is about matters of religious liberty and conscience, but Cuomo argued ObamaCare is the law of the land.


“You talk about good in standing law. It was already vetted by the Supreme Court, and that you just leave it alone and figure out its implementation,” he insisted. This isn’t the first time Cuomo has implied at least a partial support of ObamaCare.


After millions were losing or were set to lose their insurance because of ObamaCare, Cuomo insisted that “You cannot measure the law by what’s happening with this one slice of the people potentially.” He added that “Some people are going to have to pay some more, but over time it evens out.”


Cuomo also told a conservative guest last week that “You have to have the government involved with health care.”
 




NewsBusters blogs



CNN"s Cuomo Dismisses Challenge to Birth Control Mandate as "Growing Distraction" From Fixing ObamaCare

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Current Trustee In James Brown Estate Refuses Mandate to Serve With Other Trustees


At a May 29 status conference related to the controversial estate of music legend James Brown, Judge Doyet Early of Aiken vowed to rule the proceedings with a “firm hand.”


The first test of that firmness may be whether he appoints three trustees for the estate, as mandated by the will and trust documents of James Brown–or whether Judge Early allows current trustee Russell Bauknight to serve as sole trustee.


On Sept. 4 five applicants were interviewed by Judge Early for fiduciary positions with the estate. During the interview of Bauknight, a Columbia CPA, he announced he will refuse to serve if other fiduciaries are appointed.


In May the Supreme Court overturned a 2009 settlement deal by former Attorney General (AG) Henry McMaster, and the James Brown estate was remanded to Judge Early for further proceedings. In the Supreme Court opinion, Judge Early was directed to “appoint fiduciaries … in accordance with the provisions for succession outlined in Brown’s trust and estate documents.”


Brown’s estate documents require the appointment of three trustees to manage his music empire for the benefit of the “I Feel Good” Trust, an education charity for needy children in South Carolina and Georgia. Also to be funded by the music empire was a $ 2 million education trust for some of Brown’s grandchildren.


The McMaster deal gave away over half of Brown’s world-wide music empire to those Brown had excluded from inheriting it—and gave to the Attorney General the power of appointing trustees. Instead of the three trustees required by Brown’s estate documents, McMaster appointed only Bauknight, who served almost four years “at the pleasure” of McMaster and current AG Alan Wilson. On May 8 the Supreme Court voided Bauknight’s appointment but allowed him to re-apply.


During the Sept. 4 hearing in Columbia, Bauknight announced he would refuse to serve as a co-fiduciary. He said, “I’ve done a very good job with the team I’ve put together…for this estate and trust, it’s not appropriate to appoint other fiduciaries at this time.”


During his interview, Bauknight listed 27 things he had accomplished to improve the assets of the estate. He then said he would determine when the time was right to transition to three fiduciaries, and he would bring to the Court a plan for that transition.


In addition to Bauknight, Judge Early interviewed four other applicants for positions with the James Brown estate–one with a Newberry connection.


*Neal Dickert, Augusta attorney and former judge, practices law in both South Carolina and Georgia, the two states Brown intended to benefit from his charity. As both attorney and judge, Dickert has handled many will challenges. He said that based on his reading of the Supreme Court opinion, the estate needs action regarding the validity of the will, the issue of whether Brown was married, and the question of paternity. “If the Court thinks I can help, I’d be willing to do whatever I can to assist,” he said. Dickert has written for the Continuing Legal Education program in Georgia and is a member of the Georgia Academy of Mediators and Arbitrators. He is a native of Newberry, South Carolina.


*David Sojourner, Columbia attorney, was asked by Bauknight to become involved in the Brown estate after Bauknight’s attorneys advised him of a possible conflict of interest. Sojourner has agreed to accept a position with the estate under two conditions: his work would be limited to defending the estate plan, and his firm would be retained to do the legal work on that matter. “I have no interest in being a full trustee,” he said.


*William “Bill” Grooms, Columbia CPA, said his years of experience with the IRS and his expertise in taxation would be helpful to the estate. “I have a high opinion of Russell Bauknight and his skills. It would be my pleasure to work with Russell Bauknight.”


*Scott Keniley, Atlanta attorney, was elected to the Board of Governors for the Recording Academy (Grammy) and serves on its education committee. He has expertise in entertainment law and intellectual property, and he said he could help to protect the music assets—and to maximize their growth. He said, “I like the concept that this was left to education… it could be the greatest education bequest of all time.”


Judge Early said attorneys may file objections to any applicant within 10 days, and he will make a decision within 20 days. A sixth applicant, Rev. Larry Fryer of Augusta, Ga., will be interviewed Sept. 11.


The McMaster deal was appealed to the Supreme Court by former trustees, Adele Pope of Newberry and Robert Buchanan of Aiken. Since Bauknight’s appointment, he has aggressively advanced the interests of those who challenged Brown’s estate plan.


Bauknight sued the former trustees who appealed the McMaster settlement deal. He asked the Court not to lift gag orders on a document that could disprove the claim of Brown’s companion to be his wife. Also, he asked to intervene in Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits to prevent the release of public documents: the contingency fee contract under which former trustees were sued; the Legacy Trust as created by McMaster; and documents that set the at-death valuation of Brown’s estate at $ 4.7 million.


James Brown’s estate earned $ 10 million in 2011, the last year for which Bauknight filed an accounting, according to previous filings. All fiduciaries before Bauknight valued Brown’s music empire at between $ 80 and $ 100 million, and shortly before the McMaster deal was struck, a $ 100 million offer was made on the music assets.


In overturning the McMaster settlement, the Supreme Court returned the James Brown estate case to Judge Early for further proceedings. At the May 29 status conference, attended by over 50 attorneys and interested parties, Judge Early read excerpts from the Supreme Court decision, which described the McMaster settlement deal as a “dismemberment” of Brown’s estate plan.


Judge Early then vowed he would manage the proceedings with a “firm hand,” requiring high standards of proof for all claims and following the “roadmap” provided by the Supreme Court.





RELATED ARTICLES


  1. Current Trustee In James Brown Estate Refuses Mandate to Serve With Other Trustees

  2. Judges To Vote On Gun Court

  3. Watchdog Wire Weekly Wrap!

  4. Watchdog Wire Weekly Wrap!

  5. Quantitative Easing: Is it working?

COMMENTS




WatchdogWire



Current Trustee In James Brown Estate Refuses Mandate to Serve With Other Trustees

Saturday, July 20, 2013

Hobby Lobby Wins Stay Against Birth Control Mandate

A federal judge has temporarily exempted Hobby Lobby Stores Inc from a requirement in the 2010 healthcare law that it offer workers insurance coverage for birth control, which the retailer said violated its religious beliefs.

The preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton in Oklahoma City, where Hobby Lobby is based, covers the arts and crafts chain and its affiliated Mardel Christian bookstore chain.


He put the case on hold until Oct. 1, giving the federal government time to decide whether to appeal.


“There is a substantial public interest in ensuring that no individual or corporation has their legs cut out from under them while these difficult issues are resolved,” Heaton said at a hearing, according to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a nonprofit law firm representing Hobby Lobby.


A U.S. Department of Justice spokesman had no immediate comment. The government has said contraception coverage is needed to promote public health and gender equality.


The Green family, which owns Hobby Lobby, said that providing coverage to workers for the morning-after pill and similar contraceptives violated its Christian beliefs.


It also said it could have under Obamacare faced $ 1.3 million in daily fines by not providing such coverage. Hobby Lobby has 556 stores in 45 U.S. states.


On June 27, a federal appeals court in Denver let Hobby Lobby challenge the mandate on religious grounds, and said there was a good chance the company would prevail.


It said Hobby Lobby had “drawn a line at providing coverage for drugs or devices they consider to induce abortions, and it is not for us to question whether the line is reasonable.”


The Becket Fund said there are 63 lawsuits challenging the mandate. It called Heaton’s decision a victory for “the religious liberty of all for-profit businesses.”


© 2013 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.




Newsmax – America



Hobby Lobby Wins Stay Against Birth Control Mandate