Feb 182015
 

Rights and privilegesHave you noticed how governments want to own your language, so they can more easily manipulate you into giving up your rights and resources?

All Caps Names

For example, Bob Podolsky is a real person, and has all sorts of natural rights. Yet every single piece of correspondence coming from the BORG such as Bank statements, Drivers Licenses, IRS correspondence, Traffic Tickets has my name in all capital letters. I know these people went to school and learned the same grammar I did. Why is my name is all CAPS? Somehow, BOB PODOLSKY, became a vassal of the state. The argument, the all caps name is not the real person, has been thrown out as frivolous in court, yet there must be a reason why is it done this way.

Right to Travel

Similarly, I have a right to travel on public roads by riding a conveyance under my control. This is something that human beings have done since the domestication of animals, somehow adding a motor to power it and voilà, the state re-names the conveyance a Motor Vehicle and I am now a Driver. Thus the state converts my “right” into a “privilege” and grants itself the “right” to force me to pay for these privileges by buying a title, a license plate, a driver’s license, and specified insurance. If you don’t fill out forms and pay, this magically grants a ‘right” to an armed group of thugs in costumes to beat you up, put you in a cage, steal your “property” and fine you.

Right to Migrate

Since time began, humans have had the right to move to wherever they pleased, based on resources, climate, scenery or religious beliefs. That’s how the the American Indians got to the western Hemisphere, Australians and New Zealanders got to Oceania, Caucasians moved to Europe and the Pilgrims got to Plymouth Rock. They didn’t like where they were, and they moved. However the government calls the right to move, a privileged known as “immigration”. If you don’t fill out forms and pay, this magically grants a ‘right” to an armed group of thugs in costumes to beat you up, put you in a cage, steal your “property” and fine you.

Right to Property

It used to be that a human being had the right to own the land they live on. The Government changed this into a privilege by converting all own-able land into “Real Estate” You acquire the privilege of being a “tenant” on your Government controlled Bank owned land. It is impossible to own it. Want to test that? Stop paying the property tax. If you don’t fill out forms and pay, this magically grants a ‘right” to an armed group of thugs in costumes to beat you up, put you in a cage, steal your “property” and fine you.

Natural person

As a natural person I owe no allegiance to any government “authority” – but as a “citizen”, I’m perpetually at the mercy of every bureaucrat that warms a chair in a government office paid for by money stolen from the “citizenry.” Of course stealing money through threats, coercion, or extortion is crime. When the act is called “taxation, it somehow becomes legitimate. If you don’t fill out forms and pay, this magically grants a ‘right” to an armed group of thugs in costumes to beat you up, put you in a cage, steal your “property” and fine you.

Right to Eat

As a human being, I have every right, should my circumstances require it, to “forage” in the wild for food. Yet there exist many government bureaucracies that would punish me severely for doing my foraging without first purchasing their permission in the form of a hunting or fishing license, in the absence of which they’d say I was “poaching”. If you don’t fill out forms and pay, this magically grants a ‘right” to an armed group of thugs in costumes to beat you up, put you in a cage, steal your “property” and fine you.

Wasn’t Robin Hood accused of “stealing the king’s deer”? While I’m not very partial to the “heroism” of the Robin Hood character, I dare to raise the question, “Who or what gave the kings and the Government ownership of all the wild critters and everything else for that matter?” Since the “divine right of kings” is clearly a manipulative fiction, by what “right” do those who run the world today, claim to have any “authority” over anyone else? And who is today’s king, anyway?

About “Authority

According to Larken Rose, whose philosophy I much admire, the whole concept of “authority” exists but for one purpose, to fool the public into complying willingly with the demands of a particular class of people who consider themselves our “betters”, our “superiors”, our modern “nobility”, and ultimately our “masters”. In their eyes, the rest of us are of no value to them except as a source of endless plunder – and they are forever inventing new excuses to abuse the rest of us financially, socially, taking away our natural liberties, stealing our property, and enacting violence against us at their will.

While they claim this behavior is necessary in order to “protect the public”, the reality is that this notion is a total fiction, that in fact the real purpose of most of todays laws is merely to excuse the actions of our gargantuanplunderers league” – who do to the rest of us whatever they want, up to and including killing us, with complete impunity. Surely the governments of the world collectively comprise the biggest, most powerful organized crime syndicate the world has ever known – egged on I suspect by previously existing crime syndicates that joined ranks with them – the Mafia, I believe, being a case in point.

Walk into a courthouse anywhere, and at any rank, and consider that the salaries of everyone working in the building are paid for with plunder – money stolen from ordinary folks in punishment for doing the things we all have a right to do. And their only “authority” for doing this is the fact that someone who supposedly “represents” you, wrote on a piece of paper that they had the “right” to plunder you.

Of course people who like to plunder others are always polite and subservient to their higher ranking plunderers.

Of course too, in order to really understand what’s going on you have to get it that no matter how many people sign a document creating upper and lower classes, the document is still fatally flawed, because all divisions by class are fundamentally unethical, and therefore null, void, and invalid. Remember, valid law exists only to serve the ethics – not the other way around.

As far as human class structures go, we have an ownership class (nobility) that controls the central banks and large corporations, the political class that makes the rules dictated by the ownership class, the police and military class that enforces the rules, the slave class that are forced to work in hierarchies, and finally the free class that comprise a very small minority.

Note that this circumstance was not always the case in American culture. In the early days of our country, a sizable portion of the population came to this continent to be free – and was unwilling to be anyone’s slave. Alas that day came and went, as fast as the ink dried on the Constitution.

To rescue ourselves from this state of affairs will not be easy, but it will be simple. The current social system operates as a cartel-controlled hierarchy. As we begin tailoring all our institutions, including businesses, charities, schools, foundations, etc., as consensus-based organizations – we will demonstrate that the most successful form of organizational development dispenses entirely with the pretense of “authority”. Members of the existing system won’t approve of this transformation – but they won’t be able to prevent it happening – and the world will be transformed.

Jul 112014
 

In the video below Dr. Ed Rivera, professor of law and government, is interviewed by Patrick Timpone. Mr. Timpone compares Dr. Rivera’s work decoding the Organic Laws, the founding documents of the United States of America to deciphering the DiVinci Code. This video is a good introduction to the Organic Laws. These laws, the beginning of written law in America,were penned in ink for everyone to see. However, no one as been able to show you, how to understand the law in AmericaUntil now.

Published on Mar 23, 2014 What Does the Constitution Say?

Published on Mar 23, 2014

What Does the Constitution Say? Lawyers and scholars have been dumbfounded until now. Go to http://organiclaws.org to learn more.

How many Americans echoing Save the Constitution ever ask, “What does the Constitution say? Do you know that the United States Constitution was derived from the Constitution of 1787, which is one of the four Organic Laws of the United States of America. Did you know there are three offices of President in the Constitution of 1787. Were you taught about the Organic Laws of the United States of America in school?

When you ask and sincerely try to learn, “What does the Constitution say”, you will see it is a red herring. If this were not true, why have scholars and patriots fallen short in their attempts to limit the government by studying the United States Constitution.

Many people are demanding that the government uphold the Constitution, if you asked them, “What does the Constitution say”, they cannot tell you. The truth is that this document falls short of the ideals most people believe the document will provide. Finally, someone has solved the puzzle that has besieged free men and women, since September 17, 1787. Once you understand the Organic Laws of the United States of America, you will see why we have failed in attempts to limit government. Plus, you will understand what is necessary to limit government to it’s proper place.

The early European settlers bold Declaration of Independence was foiled relatively fast. But most people including lawyers and historians are clueless of the crafty work of King George III and the Founding Fathers.

Stop being bewildered asking, “What does the Constitution say”, and holding on to false hope. You just need to learn the foundation of government law in America provided by the Organic Laws of the United States of America. The law is complete and as it should, limits government based on territorial jurisdiction. The Articles of Confederation was so complete in limiting government a rumor had to be devised to deceive people into believing it was repealed and replaced by the United States Constitution.

Real solutions will not be created until the American people understand the Organic Laws of the United States of America. So if you believe we must Save the Constitution, it’s time to learn not only what the Constitution of 1787 created but how what all four Organic Laws create a foundation for government and free people. Go visit http://organiclaws.org – the only place you will get a truthful education on government law provided by a lawyer and government professor. Watch the full video here http://youtu.be/gbV-d6XW_ag for an introduction.

It’s time to learn what the Constitution really says and who it is for.

Jun 032014
 

Income Tax is Not Necessary to Fund Government

Devvy Kidd
Originally published and copyrighted in June 2001
Updated 01/25/2012

Also available on audio for free; click here.
Download to a CD or IPod and help get the truth to family and friends

Can this statement possibly be true? In order to answer this question, Americans must first understand what is the source of the money that funds the government and where it goes. Contrary to the sound bites issued by the two mainstream political parties, the reality of how the system actually works will not only open your eyes, but hopefully stimulate the American people to demand that the thievery underway come to an end.

Where do your “income” tax dollars go?

The best place to look for an answer to this question would be a government report, so let’s take just one at random:

President’s Private Sector Survey On Cost Control
A Report to The President (Reagan)

January 15, 1984. Available from the Congressional Research Service.
The excerpt below can be found on page 12.

  • “Importantly, any meaningful increases in taxes from personal income would have to come from lower and middle income families, as 90% of all personal taxable income is generated below the taxable income level of $35,000.
  • Further, there isn’t much more that can be extracted from high income brackets. If the
    Government took 100% of all taxable income beyond the $75,000 tax bracket not already taxed, it would get only $17 billion, and this confiscation, which would destroy productive enterprise, would only be sufficient to run the Government for several days.
  • Resistance to additional income taxes would be even more widespread if people were aware that:
  • With two-thirds of everyone’s personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Government contributions to transfer payments.
  • In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their government.”

So what we have is a central bank issuing worthless paper “money” that controls our economy, our lives and our future. This private banking cartel was unconstitutionally granted this power by a devious, scheming group of senators back in 1913. In essence what they did was place the American people into indentured servitude by forcing The People to pay usury on worthless fiat currency (paper money created out of nothing), not to fund the government, but to enrich the bankers and fund wars in which America should never be involved. This system exists not to fund the government, but to allow the U.S. Congress carte blanche power to continue funding unconstitutional agencies and programs by providing them with a bottomless source of worthless ink.

The National Debt and the Deficit

These two little bookkeeping items are not the same thing. Few Americans actually know the difference, but the difference is quite important. We continually hear members of Congress, president after president, and political pundits call for “reduction in the debt.” But what does that really mean? Here’s how it works in the most simplified way to fit into this document:

Let’s say that for 2002, Congress and the President decide they want $1.7 trillion dollars to fund this bloated pig called our government. We know that 100% of all personal “income” taxes extorted by the IRS goes to the “Federal” Reserve Banking System and does not fund a single function of the government. So, let’s take the people’s blood and sweat off the table.

What other revenues does the government collect? Corporate taxes, social security taxes, constitutional revenues such as excise taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, tobacco, firearms, tires, etc., tariffs on trade, military hardware sales, and some minor categories. Let’s say that those revenues will total $900 billion dollars. The politicians want $1.7 trillion to spend on their favorite welfare programs, wars and foreign welfare, but have a short fall of $800 billion dollars. This is called the deficit and the deficit, created by the spending of Congress, creates the “national debt.”

How? Because the politicians are $800 billion dollars short, they simply call up Al Greenspan and borrow your children’s and grand babies’ futures. The “Federal” Reserve Banks don’t loan anything of value to Congress. They aren’t banks; they’re really an overpaid, powerful, private accounting service. When that $800 billion dollars worth of ink is transferred to the Treasury, it gets piled on top of the existing “national debt.”

This is how the magical money machine works. Congress overspends. It borrows from this accounting firm called the “Fed” and then turns around and tells you to pay for these crimes against the people. In other words, Congress basically pays the bills with social security and borrowed ink from the “Fed.” Pretty slick scam, wouldn’t you say?

The people of America are also responsible to a large degree for this out-of-control spending. Americans have been bred to a welfare dependent mentality. Special interest groups who have no interest in the U.S. Constitution, demand that billions of dollars be spent on their pet interests. Billions upon billions of dollars have been unconstitutionally thrown to foreign governments, some days our friend, a week later our enemies. They are only our friend as long as the U.S. throws money at their corrupt governments.

Billions of dollars have unconstitutionally been spent on grants to colleges and universities, which in turn sell their research to the highest bidder, paid for by the sweat off the back of the little guy out in America. No, they don’t return any back to the little guy who funded these studies and research programs.

As long as the American people themselves condone continued unconstitutional spending by Congress, the longer they will violate their oath of office, and continue to fund unconstitutional expenditures, placing your children and grand babies in a state of unpayable, massive debt.

Unless The People demand an end to this insanity, our economy eventually will collapse under the weight of this massive, unpayable debt, no matter how much ink the “Fed” transfers into the coffers of the U.S. Treasury. The pain of withdrawal from unlawful government hand-outs will be far less now than it will be down the road.

America became the greatest, debt free nation on earth by a resourceful, independent, self reliant people. Sadly, today we have a large percentage of our population who can’t get through the day without a government memo telling them how, step-by-step, with a redistribution of average, ordinary Americans assets into the hands of the unproductive. A very sad commentary to what made our nation great and prosperous.

But I heard the debt is being paid down?

What you heard and reality are two separate issues altogether. The politicians must continue to fool the American people lest they catch on to this chicanery. Let’s have a look at the numbers so you can see that any utterance that the national debt has been paid down X billions of dollars, is nothing more than bombastic gas, passed from one administration to the next and the latest recycled Congress.

In the chart below, an R next to the amount indicates a Republican President; a D is for a Democrat in the Oval Office. The Democrats had control of Congress from 1954, until the illusion billed as the “Republican Revolution” in 1994. Both houses of Congress were Republican controlled until after the 2000 “election”, but this ended when in May 2001 James Jeffords ‘fessed up to his real political agenda.

Current Congressionally created debt:

01/23/2012
12/31/2011
06/30/2011
12/31/2010
06/30/2010
12/31/2009
08/30/2009
04/16/2009
10/30/2008
11/01/2007
09/29/2006
09/30/2005
09/30/2004
09/30/2003
09/30/2002
09/28/2001
08/08/2001
04/30/2001
02/28/2001
01/31/2001
12/29/2000
09/29/2000
09/30/1999
09/30/1998
09/30/1997
09/30/1996
09/29/1995
09/30/1994
09/30/1993
09/30/1992
09/30/1991
09/28/1990
09/29/1989
09/30/1988
09/30/1987
$15,236,245,309,869.69 (D)
$15,222,940,045,451.09 (D)
$14,343,087,640,008.40 (D)
$14,025,215,218,708.52 (D)
$13,203,473,753,968.10 (D)
$12,311,349,677,512.03 (D)
$11,909,829,003,511.75 (D)
$11,183,899,252,728.00 (D)
$10,530,893,033,778.21 (R)
$9,080,228,573,291.65 (R)
$8,506,973,899,215.23 (R)
$7,932,709,661,723.50 (R)
$7,379,052,696,330.32 (R)
$6,783,231,062,743.62 (R)
$6,228,235,965,597.16 (R)
$5,807,463,412,200.06 (R)
$5,720,324,946,092.23 (R)
$5,661,347,798,002.65 (R)
$5,735,859,380,573.98 (R)
$5,716,070,587,057.36 (R)
$5,662,216,013,697.37 (D)
$5,674,178,209,886.86 (D)
$5,656,270,901,615.43 (D)
$5,526,193,008,897.62 (D)
$5,413,146,011,397.34 (D)
$5,224,810,939,135.73 (D)
$4,973,982,900,709.39 (D)
$4,692,749,910,013.32 (D)
$4,411,488,883,139.38 (D)
$4,064,620,655,521.66 (R)
$3,665,303,351,697.03 (R)
$3,233,313,451,777.25 (R)
$2,857,430,960,187.32 (R)
$2,602,337,712,041.16 (R)
$2,350,276,890,953.00 (R)

The statistics above were obtained from the Bureau of The Public Debt’s web site:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway
As you can see, it doesn’t matter which party is in office, there is no surplus and the debt cannot be paid down, it can only grow exponentially as long as Congress and the President have the central bank at their fingertips.

A “balanced budget” is nothing more than good political rhetoric, but in reality, it’s a pipe dream strictly for public consumption. How can you balance your budget if you have no money to spend and are trillions of dollars in the hole? You can’t. It’s just another well crafted illusion to keep the masses pacified.

You can fool some of the people some of the time, but the American people have awakened to this monumental theft and are demanding the only real solution that can be implemented: Abolishing the central bank, and a return to a constitutional monetary system with no income tax.

No “Fed,” no need for a direct tax

Without the central bank siphoning off the wealth of our nation, there would be no need for a personal income tax.

President Andrew Jackson booted out the central bank; his speech can be read here:

http://alpha.furman.edu/~benson/docs/ajveto.htm

This battle fought by Jackson was a huge deal back then and he refused to back down. Jackson was the last honest president with the guts to stand up to the international bankers who are literally stealing US blind.

“The greatest party battle of Jackson’s presidency centered around the Second Bank of the United States, a private corporation but virtually a Government-sponsored monopoly. When Jackson appeared hostile toward it, the Bank threw its power against him.

“Clay and Webster, who had acted as attorneys for the Bank, led the fight for its recharter in Congress. “The bank,” Jackson told Martin Van Buren, “is trying to kill me, but I will kill it!” Jackson, in vetoing the recharter bill, charged the Bank with undue economic privilege.

“His views won approval from the American electorate; in 1832 he polled more than 56 percent of the popular vote and almost five times as many electoral votes as Clay.”

Please note that the words “a private corporation but virtually a Government sponsored monoploy” comes directly from the White House’s web site. What a huge admission!

On line, you can also read Congressman Louis McFadden’s indictment on the Federal Reserve Corporation. It is a very concise explanation of how the international banking cartel has been sacking this country’s wealth since 1913.

Don’t be fooled by this chant around the country for a flat tax, a consumption tax, sales tax or any other kind of personal income tax. There is absolutely no authority in the U.S. Constitution to implement any of these forms of taxation without apportionment. It is for this reason and this reason alone, that when it became apparent that the 16th Amendment was not going to be ratified by the states, fraud was committed and it was simply “proclaimed” ratified by then Secretary of State Philander Knox.

We don’t need any direct taxation and these popular mantras are just new lies to replace old lies. Any one of these forms of taxation will still feed the cancer: the central bank. Any one of these forms of taxation is just another way to fleece the American people to enrich the pockets of the international banking cartel. Please consider the words of Congressman Ron Paul:

    “Strictly speaking, it probably is not necessary for the federal government to tax anyone directly; it could simply print the money it needs. However, that would be too bold a stroke, for it would then be obvious to all what kind of counterfeiting operation the government is running. The present system combining taxation and inflation is akin to watering the milk: too much water and the people catch on.”

Please don’t fall for these alternative taxing SCHEMES. The banking cartel doesn’t care what form it is they fleece your hard earned dollars (flat tax, fair tax, sales tax, etc.) – just as long as they continue to steal from us:

Beware alternative taxing schemes
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43242

Make IRS check payable to stockholders of private Fed
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43820

Today is April 15 … again
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44036

What we need to do is take away the magical money machine called the “Fed,” which will force Congress to live within its means and fund only those activities specifically enumerated by the supreme law of the land in Art. 1, § 8 of the U.S. Constitution:

Lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States, but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States, borrow Money on the credit of the United States, regulate commerce (trade), naturalization, bankruptcy laws, coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign Coin, fix the Standard of Weights and Measures, punishment regarding counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States, establish Post Offices and post Roads, Promote [Editorial note: “promote” does not mean fund] the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries, constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court, define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water, Raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years, provide and maintain a Navy, make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions, provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress, Exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings, make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. **

There is absolutely no authority for the federal government to legislate in areas of the environment, education, the NEA, the FDA and many others. It may surprise you to find out that agencies such as FDA, DEA and the EPA all derive their jurisdiction from international treaties. When the powers that be wish to circumvent the U.S. Constitution, they do it either through an executive order or international treaties. We strongly encourage you to investigate this issue thoroughly.

Prior to the Federal Department of Education, America had the finest schools in the world. Since this disastrous and unconstitutional grab for power, we can all see that a quadrillion dollars a year will not fix our schools, and they continue to decline faster than the feds or states can shovel money into them. Even if a direct tax were necessary, only by keeping it at its lowest possible percentage would it ever benefit this nation:


“The point now emphasized is that the evil effects of high surtaxes fall not upon the individual whose income is seized and taken, but ultimately almost entirely upon the mass of the people who are thereby deprived of the benefits which would result from the free flow of commercial transactions and the use of the additional capital which would be available for productive enterprise.
“Freedom of business transactions essential.

“The revenues to be obtained by the Government from this class of taxes depends upon transactions in trade and commerce which bring about income available for payment of taxes. It is highly desirable, in the interest of the production of revenue, that the volume of business transactions giving rise to gain shall be as great as possible, and to this end it is essential that the natural laws of trade and commerce and the free flow of business shall not be interfered with or prevented.


The excerpt below is from pgs 19-20, Annual Report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the State of Finances for 1921:


“But the direct effect of these very high taxes is to hinder and prevent business transactions which would otherwise take place. A man may have property which he has held for years and which has greatly increased in value, and he would like to sell it, but if he does a large part of the gain would have to be paid out in taxes. He would rather keep the property than sell it, pay the tax, and invest what is left in something else. At the same time the party desiring to buy this property, if he obtained it, would improve it with buildings.

What is the result? The transaction does not take place, and the community loses the advantage which would come in the stimulation that would arise from the transactions resulting from the buyer’s improvement of the property, and it also loses the advantage of the seller’s putting his money into some other form of investment, which in turn would give rise to business transactions. The same thing on a much greater scale is true in manufacturing and mercantile lines. Men have built up enterprises to the point where they are highly successful. They would like to take their profit and turn the business over to younger men to carry on.

These transactions are highly desirable not only for the parties but for the community, yet they are absolutely stopped, because if made the seller would have to pay in one year a tax on a gain which has been the result of perhaps the better part of a lifetime of effort. And in all such cases the Government gets no tax, whereas if the rates were reasonable the transactions would take place and the Government’s revenues would benefit accordingly.

The free interchange of property in business transactions is essential to the normal prosperity of the country, and each such transaction has a direct tendency to bring about others of like character with the result of increasing the amount of gain or income available for taxation; but when the tax is so high as to act as a deterrent against usual and desirable business transactions, and the volume of such transactions is thereby lessened, the inevitable result is for the tax to become less and less productive.

It is for these reasons that, particularly in the higher brackets, a lower tax rate will produce more revenue in the long run than excessive rates. So long as the high rate stands in the way of accomplishing bargains and sales, the Government receives no tax; but at a lower rate the transactions proceed and the Government shares in the profits.” (End of excerpt.)


Today Americans are being fleeced to the tune of approximately 52% of every dollar going for local, state and federal taxes. The day is rapidly approaching when making even $1,000 per hour will not be enough to survive. How much longer are the people of this nation going to put up with this state of affairs? We say enough is enough!

A Pioneer on the withholding issue

Vivien Kellems was a woman before her time who knew the grand theft taking place against the working man’s paycheck. [For more information on Ms. Kellems, see: http://www.vivienkellems.org/]. The following excerpt from pages 41-46 of her book, Toil, Taxes and Trouble, published in 1952 is legally right on point:

    “Since a capitation means a tax of the same amount for every person, this provision makes doubly sure that all federal taxes must be at the same uniform rate for everybody. This limitation that direct taxes be levied by the Federal Government must be in proportion to a census and apportioned among the States in accordance with numbers, is the only provision in the Constitution that is stated twice.

    “The only reason that our Constitution required a census to be taken every ten years was to count the people to determine how many Representatives should go to Congress, and how direct taxes should be levied. I wonder how many Americans thought of this in 1950 when those little busybodies came knocking on their doors, asking ten thousand impudent, silly questions which were none of their, or Washington’s, business.

    “There is absolutely no power granted in the Constitution which enables a top-heavy bureaucracy of empty-headed simpletons, and worse, to invade the privacy of the American people in such a monstrous manner.
This census is just a preview of what is really in store for us if they actually take over, which they most certainly will do unless we uproot and vote them out.

    “The census was to count the people – that was all. The number of people determined the number of Representatives in Congress and the apportionment of direct taxes among the states.

    “For a long time I asked myself, ‘Why were Representatives and direct taxes linked together and apportioned among the States in accordance with population?’ It was understandable that Representatives should be chosen in accordance with numbers but why should taxes be apportioned the same way? And then one day, out of the blue, it came to me crystal clear. All at once I understood the plan to safeguard the future freedom of the nation, conceived and executed by those scholarly men.

    “I read again: ‘Representatives and direct taxes shall be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers…’ ‘No capitation, or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census of Enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken.’ And in those two sentences our forefathers bound fast the hands of Congress and secured the liberty and freedom of the American people. How? By making it utterly impossible to levy an income tax.

    “An income tax is certainly a direct tax, probably the most direct tax of all since it cannot be shifted but must be paid by the person receiving the income. By specifying that direct taxes must be levied in accordance with the number of people, not upon what they produced, as in the days of ancient Egypt, an income tax was simply out of the question. It cannot be levied upon a man but must be levied upon what he receives.

    “Our forefathers designed and incorporated in the Constitution a new system of government. It was built upon a revolutionary idea; the conviction that the government belonged to the people and existed only by their consent. Its genius lay in the careful system of checks and balances among the three departments, the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial. And it went further and maintained a balance between the powers of the individual States and the Federal Government. In addition it carefully reserved to the States and to the people all rights and powers not specifically delegated, or prohibited to the Federal Government and further stated that because certain rights were enumerated in the Constitution it did not mean that others not mentioned were still not the property of the people.

    “However everything in the Constitution was arrived at by compromise. The interests and concerns of the thirteen states varied widely and each delegate was sent to Philadelphia to protect the commerce, industry and agriculture of his particular state. It required months of patient discussion, argument and forbearance to finally produce the finished document, which when completed, comprised a system of government to protect the people in the rights and liberties set down in flaming words in the Declaration of Independence. It is a wonderful document, the best system of government ever devised for human beings, but it could have varied in some respects and still have worked satisfactorily……

    “The supreme achievement of the combined brains of all those men were written into those two sentences and the freedom and liberty of the American people were secured in them. For in those two sentences the right of the free man to own something was made inviolate. This was his distinguishing mark, the only criterion of freedom in all the world, the right of the common man to retain for himself the fruit of his labor.

Now this is how it worked. Every man was given a vote with which he could vote for his Representative. Originally only Representatives were elected, Senators were appointed by the State Legislatures and it’s too bad we changed that provision.”

(Editorial Note: We didn’t. Like the 16th Amendment, the 17th Amendment is a fraud–it was never ratified by the states. Therefore, we have not had a lawfully seated senate since 1913.)

    “That Representative having to stand for election every two years was close to the people and responsive to their wishes. That is why he was given the power to tax; all bills of revenue arise in the House. And that is why he must come home every two years and give an accounting to the people.

    “But his power to levy direct taxes was limited by an ironbound restriction: that tax must be apportioned among the States in accordance with the population. Since all taxes were to be at a uniform rate, Congress simply could not penalize one section of the country, or one group of citizens for the unfair advantage of another.

    “When Congress levied a tax, everybody had to pay and at the same rate. The amount would vary with the wealth of an area, as it does today with the different values of real estate, but the rate was the same for all and the tax was distributed among the States according to population.

    “The men who wrote our Constitution did not found a democracy. They feared the so-called ‘Democrats’ of their day as much as we fear the Communists today. They did not believe in mob rule, or government by the unintelligent, irresponsible mass. They founded a republic and they made certain that the right to vote should be curbed and controlled by the necessity of paying taxes. Scheming politicians could not take taxes from a helpless minority and buy themselves back into office with the votes of the tax exempt majority. When a Representative voted a tax, he voted to tax everybody because the tax was based upon numbers, not upon dollars.

    “This was the most brilliant plan ever conceived for guaranteeing the freedom of a nation. It protected every person in his right to private property, rich and poor alike, and under this protection we built the richest, most powerful nation on earth. We achieved and maintained for the majority of our people a standard of living undreamed of before, the hope and the envy of the whole world.

    “And we accomplished something even more important: we developed a vigorous, self-reliant, self- respecting race of people. An American citizen would have been ashamed to ask for a handout from his Government. The Government belonged to him, he did not belong to the government.

    “And then what happened? We chucked our carefully safeguarded right to own something out the window, and we passed the income tax amendment. Gone was our apportionment among the States in accordance with population, and also gone was our principle of uniformity. Income ‘from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration’ could be taxed and without limit. And when we passed this income tax amendment the slow, distilled poison of tax slavery dripped into our veins. We sowed the seeds of our national decay which is rapidly coming to maturity before our eyes today. The heritage of freedom so carefully insured for us by our forefathers is gone; it has been taxed away.” (End of excerpt.)

The “General Welfare” Clause of the Constitution

The majority of unconstitutional spending is justified by the “general welfare” clause of the constitution. Shawn O’Connor of the Free Enterprise Society summed up this misconception in one of his speeches, paraphrased below:

“Discussion of the general welfare clause of the Constitution by the courts relies upon the Federalist Papers. This term simply means: Taxation was to protect the individuals’ life, liberty and ownership of private property. One can go to Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 1 of the constitution and read the general welfare clause. Then one can do some history research and see what the Anti-Federalists had to say about this clause:

“That this clause conveys absolute power to the central government. Patrick Henry was very vocal in his opposition to putting this kind of language into the constitution. Madison, however, assured Henry and others that all the general welfare clause represented was a preliminary introduction prior to the enumerating the specific powers the delegates were about to grant to this new federal government and that the general welfare clause granted no new power to the government whatsoever. It was simply an introductory statement.

The Anti-Federalists still weren’t satisfied. Hamilton and Madison came back to re-state that if the general welfare clause conveyed absolute power to the government, why would they go on to list the specific powers they were going to grant the government? That wouldn’t make any sense at all if they were going to give absolute power to this government. It was finally conceded by all at the convention that the general welfare clause conveyed absolutely no power to the government.” [End of comment.]

The general welfare clause of the constitution has been misused for personal gain by special interest groups to enrich the pockets of the banking cartel, by politicians hoping to “get that vote,” and an all out push to turn America into a socialist country, beginning with the “New Deal” implemented by FDR and supported by a weak Congress. Lyndon Johnson took the quest to turn America into a socialist nation to new and grotesque heights.

How would you fund the government without any direct taxation?

The powers that be know it’s just a matter of time before the truth reaches enough Americans about the voluntary income tax system. Already trial balloons are being floated to once again fool the people into some form of alternative tax in order to feed the central bank.

America functioned very well without an income tax throughout the history of this Republic. The answer to the question of funding without a direct tax is found is Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution since 1787. It provides for Congress to pass a legislative bill for tax money to be paid by each state in proportion to its population.

Proper, constitutional funding will allow large amounts of money to fund a limited form of Republican government. To continue on the path of this massive and unconstitutional spending will bring a final and total collapse of the economy. Make no mistake about it.

Has your government been truthful?

Do you know why the “withholding tax” system was put into place? Let me provide you with just one shocking example of how things work behind the scenes:


Declassified (Confidential Committee Print)
Withholding Tax Hearing Before A Subcommittee of The Committee on Finance,
United States Senate, 77th Congress, Second Session on:
Data Relative to Withholding Provisions of the 1942 Revenue Act, August 21 and 22, 1942
(Printed for the use of the Committee on Finance)
United States Government Printing Office, Washington 1942
SUMMARY/Contents Statement of:
Friedman, Milton, Division of Tax Research, Treasury Department
Hardy, Charles O., of Brookings Institution
Jacobstein, Meyer, of Brookings Institution
Paul, Randolph E., Treasury Department

Overview

Because the war effort resulted in increased production and employment, which caused a sudden large influx of money into circulation, the Federal Government and Federal Reserve System had to find a method of “mopping up excess purchasing power” thereby control inflation and obtain immediate funds for the Treasury. Several plans were put forth before the House, Ways & Means Committee and the Senate Committee on Finance to accomplish this purpose.

The following points were made by the Senators and those testifying before the committee:

1. The overall purpose was to obtain immediate money for the war effort, to control inflation and to get the income tax on a current basis instead of being one year behind.

2. To accomplish this goal, it was recognized that a scheme was needed to reach the largest number of people.

3. That the scheme, regardless of whether it was a “coupon,” “stamp” or “withholding of income tax at source,” would constitute a “forced loan” to the Federal Government and it would apply to taxpayers and nontaxpayers alike, with exceptions.

4. Where an individual had money withheld and ultimately no tax liability, the individual would file an income tax return and that income tax return would constitute an automatic claim for refund.

5. The proposed plan was an emergency war time measure.

Hearing Experts, Beginning Page 99

Statement of Meyer Jacobstein of Brookings Institution

“It is obvious that it is necessary to mop up the excess purchasing power of the community, not only because of it’s effect on the price situation but because the Treasury needs the money and needs it quickly.*

Obviously the Treasury can collect from the consumers as the purchases are made and the Treasury has the use of those funds long before it would obtain them by the income-tax method.

Now, there are many ways, of course, of mopping up this surplus purchasing power…Now, there is the withholding tax at the source based on payrolls.”

Senator Clark: “Doctor, what this plan is, it is essentially a compulsory savings plan based on sales tax methods, is it not?”

Mr. Jacobstein: “I should say that is a fair description of it, yes. It is the use of a sales tax method without being a tax.”

Senator Clark: “So far as the impact on the public is concerned, it is precisely the same as a sales tax, except you give the money back sometimes.”

Mr. Jacobstein: “That is right. That is a very fair statement, I think. Senator Danaher used the word “self-assessment.” If I buy a dollar necktie I pay $1.10 under his plan. A withholding tax is usually withheld at the source. Here you withhold it not at the manufacturer’s end but at the retailer’s end. You are using the retailer instead of the manufacturer to siphon off several billion dollars, depending on the rate of the assessment of a tax.

It may be that several systems can be used. Any one of them might be very useful to the Treasury in accomplishing this purpose. But…for siphoning off purchasing power into the Treasury from day to day, or week to week, or month to month; and it has that advantage.

Now, there is an aspect to this question which was not brought out in the original memorandum which would make the scheme perhaps a little more palatable if certain deductions were made by any method, either by the withholding tax method or direct sales tax method or by Senator Danaher’s proposal….”

Statement of Charles O. Hardy of the Brookings Institution

Mr. Hardy: “First…mainly for the purpose of providing an exemption from the tax or forced loan, either one. Now, as has been stated a moment ago, this is a forced loan. It should be pointed out, I think, that you can do the same thing with the mechanics of any other tax, that is, under the income tax you can give out bonds or coupons redeemable in bonds instead of giving receipts for the income tax. You can do that, as far as I can see, with any tax, for the whole schedule of taxes.

I would like to say…that we have to bring about a readjustment of consumption in the country to the amount of consumers goods and services that we can spare the resources to produce under war conditions. First, we have got to devote our productive energies to the war.

Or, you can use the mechanism of the sales tax, as far as I can see, by mopping up the increased purchasing power that is created by the rising amount they receive in their paychecks. On the other hand, if the money is stored up, whether it is in the form of these stamps or in the form where people haven’t spent it because they have had no way to spend it, in either case if it is too large a proportion you are going to have the problem, whenever you do turn it loose, that you have now in the other case, namely of having a lot more purchasing power than you have goods and services to make it good with.

That is the answer, I think, to the question that might be raised as to why not carry this principle through and apply it to income tax, corporation tax, and everything else. Obviously, this has the advantage that this definitely sews up the purchasing power in such a way that it cannot be released until we discover the proper way to release it.

I think it has a great advantage over the deficient spending program. This program just postpones the problem of administration, in deciding how much purchasing power is available to release and to what extent it will create the old wartime inflation over again.”

Senator Danaher: “Let me ask you this question: Considering the withholding tax, simply the treasury withholds it currently and applies the proceeds against the tax due in a given year…”

Mr. Hardy: “The deduction from salaries and interest, and so on, at the source?”

Senator Danaher: “Yes.”

Mr. Hardy: “Yes.”

Senator Danaher: “That is a currently applied method of withholding so much of the consumer purchasing power as is represented by the tax collected or withheld.”

Mr. Hardy: “That is right.”

Senator Danaher: “And the applied as against the tax due.”

Mr. Hardy: “Yes. The withholding tax provision has the effect of withholding purchasing power at the time the income is realized rather than a year hence through the income tax structure.”

Senator Danaher: “And if it were in effect for 1 year it would apply only 1 year?”

Mr. Hardy: “I assume so.”

Senator Danaher: “Yes. Whereas this proposal is a continuing thing.”

Mr. Hardy: “It seems to me the essential difference is that the withholding tax plan applies at the point of receipt of income, and this applies at the point of expenditure of income.”

Senator Danaher: “Of course, you withhold not only from taxpayers but nontaxpayers.”

Mr. Hardy: “Yes. Some people that I talked to about this plan, Federal Reserve people, have been rather favorable to the idea.”

Mr. Jacobstein: “Don’t you want to add that Mr. Selko pointed out that such difficulties as are encountered in the States are, partially at least, overcome when you have a uniform Federal tax? Where you have a uniform tax all over the country by one administration, the Federal Government, it is easier to administer than a sum total of 48 states. Now that was Mr. Selko’s conclusion.”

Statement of Milton Friedman, Division of Tax Research, Treasury Department

Senator Danaher: “I have only one other thought on that point. In the event of withholding from the owner of stock and no taxes due ultimately, where does he get his refund?”

Mr. Friedman: “You thinking of a corporation or an individual?”

Senator Danaher: “I am talking about an individual.”

Mr. Friedman: “An individual will file an income tax return, and that income tax return will constitute an automatic claim for refund.” End of document excerpts.

What bald faced lies. “Mop up purchasing power”? Fleecing Americans dry is a more accurate way to describe this terrible injustice against US. How about letting Americans decide to save the fruits of their labor? No, the government wants it all.

* Art. 1, Sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to issue money, not the private fed: “To coin money, regulate the value thereof,” Cut out the middle man (“Fed”) and the Treasury wouldn’t “need the money.” What a con game.

T. Coleman Andrews. Mr. Andrews (a Democrat) was Commissioner for the first 33 months of the Eisenhower Administration, stated the following in an article for U.S. News & Report, May 25, 1956:

“….We’re confiscating property now….That’s socialism. It’s written into the Communist Manifesto. Maybe we ought to see that every person who gets a tax return receives a copy of the Communist Manifesto with it so he can see what’s happening to him.”

Beardsley Ruml, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York stated in one of his speeches in 1946:
“The second principal purpose of federal taxes is to attain more equality of wealth and of income than would result from economic forces working alone. The taxes which are effective for this purpose are the progressive individual income tax, the progressive estate tax, and the gift tax. What these taxes should be depends on public policy with respect to the distribution of wealth and of income.

It is important, here, to note that the estate and gift taxes have little or no significance, as tax measures, for stabilizing the value of the dollar. Their purpose is the social purpose of preventing what otherwise would be high concentration of wealth and income at a few points, as a result of investment and reinvestment of income not expended in meeting day-to-day consumption requirements. These taxes should be defended and attacked it terms of their effects on the character of American life, not as revenue measures.
Taxes on corporation profits have three principal consequences — all of them bad.”

Does the average man or woman in America know this?

What do we mean when we say that the IRS is not a government agency? Read this quote
from an U.S. attorney submitted in court documents in a tax case up in Idaho:

Betty Richardson, United States Attorney, Box 32, Boise, Idaho 83707. Civil No. 93-405-E-EJL, United States’ Answer and Claim re: Diversified Metal Products, Inc., Plaintiff v. T-Bow Company Trust, Internal Revenue Service and Steve Morgan, Defendants, page 4, paragraph #4:
“Denies (the U.S. government) that the Internal Revenue Service is an agency of the United States government …”

If the IRS is not an agency of the federal government, just what is it? In a nutshell, the income tax is international in scope and not incumbent upon domestic Americans. That is a provable fact. The IRS for more than 80 years has been misapplying the IRCode against unsuspecting Americans and back up their unlawful activities with brute force. This must stop.

What can you do?

The federal government must generate revenues to operate what our Founding Fathers created: A limited form of Republican government. State constitutions are all guaranteed a limited form of Republican government. America is not a democracy. We believe America is a nation of laws, not lies. We can’t have it both ways for political expediency or to please any and every special interest group that bribes politicians at all levels with the politically correct “PAC money.”

Sometimes it’s difficult to be the messenger of news that people would rather not hear.

However, Americans can no longer remain in their comfort zones because the message isn’t what they want to hear. If your house is on fire, you don’t sit and continue to watch the television set, you call the fire department. America: Our house is on fire and it is the obligation of every American to safeguard the liberties and freedoms given to us by those who paid the ultimate price. Please join the growing numbers of millions who are ready to take back our country and stop the assault on our rights.

Nov 042013
 

NSP – Oct 5, 2013 – Guest: Bernard von NotHaus and Co-hosts: JT & Calvin

Posted on October 5th, 2013 by Calvin

GuestBernard von NotHaus, the “domestic terrorist” you can call a hero, who founded and operated the Liberty Dollar. In part 2 of the podcast, co-hosts JT & Calvin join to discuss a myriad of topics.

Show Notes:

  • Background of the judge and jury [coercive parties] that led to a honest businessman, who was earning a living on 100% voluntary trade [non-coercive party], to exit the Orwellian sphincter as a “unique form of domestic terrorist.”
  • 15-year anniversary of the Liberty Dollar.
  • Properly describing the “charges” of the STATE in objective terms.
  • The Liberty Dollar was meant to be a parallel currency, not a competing currency.
  • Anne Tompkin’s ceremonial, PR role on the FBI’s prepared predetermined-verdict press-release.
  • The lack of actual violence in Bernard’s case despite their smear campaign of “a unique form of domestic terrorist.”
  • The inherent lying nature of prosecuting attorneys.
  • Applicability of the constitution and codes, or otherwise known as jurisdiction, was not addressed before or during the trial.
  • The severe abundance of ineffective council from two “dumb and dumber” cult-members spawned from the STATE-cult bar.
  • The sensational theatrical performance of the prosecuting attorney’s opening and closing statements and remarks.
  • Being judged by a jury that is dependent on the judge’s and prosecutor’s income revenue.
  • Sissy prosecutors that don’t believe in objecting during a closing argument.
  • Objecting to everything that exposes the facade of fairness and impartiality of the judge, who is paid by the same party as the prosecutor. [conflict-of-interest much?]
  • How do you go about proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr.___ actually violated the code if you haven’t first determined whether the code actually applies to Mr.___?
  • Despite the lack of a deceitful nature required to convict someone as a fraud, how can you call a $10 product that appreciated to a $30 value a fraud?
  • Selective witness testimony allowed in favor of the prosecution.
  • Qualifying the witnesses by their personal firsthand knowledge on certain elements of the charges.
  • Examining and evaluating the judge’s fairness and impartiality.
  • Circumstantial evidence that suggests the jury did not read the jury instructions from the judge.
  • No objections from the DOJ on the motion for acquittal filed after the sham trial.
  • A surprise letter flood and to the judge and numerous favorable op-ed articles in support of Bernard.
  • Filing a Brady request to disqualify witnesses that have a known history of dishonesty while on the stand under penalty of perjury.
  • Looking forward to getting back to business after a fair acquittal.
  • Reviewing Bernard von NotHaus’ Liberty Dollar persecution for his rampage of voluntarily trading with his customers.
  • The business network that worked with and supported the Liberty Dollar.
  • Statism: Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.
  • Threats made during Bill’s hearing: “I’ll be the last friendly face you see.”
  • Using abstract terms (reification) to obfuscate the gun in the room.
  • Ditching abstracts to objectively define each character’s roles in a typical legal attack.
  • “I know a guy, who knows a guy, who knows a guy,” and other predictive logical fallacies judges and prosecutors revert to for establishing jurisdiction.
  • Vox et praeterea nihil: voice and nothing more. So in practical terms; beyond your say so, where’s the evidence that your laws apply to me?
  • Conditioned behavioral responses to authoritah who justify their demands by claiming “its the law.”
  • The Chaser’s War on Everything experiment of people who blindly accept illusions of authority and end up accepting citations for “douche-bag tattoos.”
  • Larken’s contribution to destroying illusions of authority with his video “I’m Allowed to Rob You.”
  • Examining the biased opinions, and lack of objective criticism, from those who’s entire lives are dependent on the STATE’s blood-money.
  • Building your opinions on facts and evidence.
  • Statist double-standards when identifying failure in a case when the judge rules against them.
  • Their words, according to the government’s own mandate (the founding and guiding documents), and how it conflicts with what they actually say and do in reality, like proceeding with an unjusticable case.
  • The STATE prosecution accuses Marc of arguing abstractions while he’s attempting to decipher their abstractions.
  • The bar association cult.
  • The jealousy of attorneys that don’t get as reproducible results as those of us who persistently question the evidence without spending tens-of-thousands on a law degree.
  • Pro per-litigant felony cases that have been kicked out of court by questioning the evidence without having to get to the point of trial.
  • Why do they say that jurisdiction can be challenged at any point of litigation, but they don’t allow the challenge of jurisdiction in reality? Why is it part of their cannons?
  • Keeping CITIZENS dependent on the STATE by use of intimidation and fear control techniques.
  • Replacing monopolized STATE services with voluntary alternatives.
  • Defining psychopaths in accordance with the medical definition.
  • Bureaucrats that don’t feel the need to answer any questions despite them destroying innocent lives.
  • Do we need a group of psychopaths ruling over us?
  • The Angola Three: a story the lucid epiphanies of surviving 40+ years of solitary confinement: the world is a prison, the security-level is the real difference.
  • Government Explained inspired by Larken Rose’s talk at the Free Your Mind Conference 2011.
  • ‘Rowdy’ Roddy Piper Drops Bombshell: “They Live” Was A Documentary.
  • The logical parallels between the Idocracy court scene and Quatloos rhetoric.
  • Replacing mass extortion [taxes] with a voluntary system.
  • Fined via taxes for opting-out of Obamacare.
  • Dirty tricks from the tax bureaucrats.
  • Your stolen income at work: agorist-based Silk Road shut down by the Feds.
  • Government offenders of child-exploitation.
  • Government, that commits massive murder-for-hire everyday, condemns an individual for alleged murder-for-hire. Double-standard much?
  • European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs hearing on NSA revelations: Jacob Appelbaum, Thomas Drake, Jesselyn Radack, and J. Kirk Wiebe.
  • Steven Colbert’s Jon Stewart’s interview with Richard Dawkins about the likelihood of mutually-assured destruction by the sociopathic ruling-class before making contact with extraterrestrial beings.
  • Death by bureaucrat as documented on many websites like CopBlock.org.
  • It doesn’t matter if the deadly intruder is costumed or not when they choose to invade your home, protect yourself with the necessary force required to neutralize any imminent deadly threats.
  • How the government “shut-down” is affecting Marc’s work.
  • Increase in traffic efficiency and safety when BORG government traffic lights are removed.
  • Lack of chemtrails due to the government “shut-down?”
  • FAA strikes law for powering down electronic devices before takeoff and landing.
  • The collective conformist perception that its extremist to be anti-authority or anti-government, but somehow its acceptable to be anti-authoritarian or anti-NAZI.
  • New study shows that it doesn’t matter on intelligence, people would alter their answers based on the confirmation bias based upon their political beliefs.

Nov 022013
 

Surveillance Is only for Peons

The political class will not be spied on

By

Antiwar.com

We’re supposed to believe BORG President Obama had no idea the NSA was spying on Angela Merkel’s cell phone, but the Liar-and-Thief was effectively refuted by his own underlings when NSA spokeswoman Vanee Vines huffily told the Wall Street Journal:

“The agency’s activities stem from the National Intelligence Priorities Framework, which guides prioritization for the operation, planning and programming of U.S. intelligence analysis and collection.”

The NIPF is essentially a list of intelligence targets that sets the general parameters of US covert surveillance activities in various countries, and is personally approved by the President. It’s therefore well nigh impossible Obama didn’t know about the NSA’s surveillance of Merkel, not to mention all the other world leaders we’ve been keeping tabs on. It may very well be that spying on Merkel began in 2002, before she was elected, but the German paper Bild am Sonntag – citing a “U.S. intelligence worker involved in the NSA operation against Merkel” – is reporting the President personally approved the surveillance in 2010, when he was informed of it by NSA chief Gen. Keith Alexander.

It’s fun to watch the consternation in Obama-land as the blowback from the Snowden revelations lands on Washington’s doorstep in the form of angry phone calls from world leaders. Of course, most of them were to some extent complicit when the NSA wanted to spy on their countrymen: in Germany, the intelligence services cooperated with the Americans, as the Brits certainly did, along with the French. It’s just that they thought they were personally exempt.

Their outrage is echoed by BORG Sen. Dianne Feinstein, once the Senate’s biggest champion of the BORG Surveillance State, who is now on the warpath because of the Merkel eavesdropping scandal. After announcing she is “totally opposed” to NSA spying on our European allies, she declared her intention to conduct a comprehensive formal review of US intelligence-gathering programs.

While many commentators remarked that if the NSA has even lost Feinstein they’re screwed, the oddity of her unexpectedly harsh reaction was pointed out by Spencer Ackerman and Dan Roberts writing in the UK Guardian: “Her position,” they noted, “left many longtime intelligence observers puzzled. NSA spying on foreign leaders is far more traditional than its domestic bulk collection, which Feinstein has not criticized. Regardless of Feinstein’s motivations, intelligence veterans seemed to understand that the political momentum is not on their side.”

Yes, but what is her motivation, anyway? It seems to me worthwhile pursuing the subject, since, if the US intelligence apparatus has any legitimacy at all, it’s one legitimate function is to haul in intelligence of this very sort. Surely knowing what’s on the mind of a leader we must deal with regularly is almost a prerequisite for a successful relationship, one that’s in the national interest to maintain. In this realpolitik sense, then, it is routine – or “traditional,” as Ackerman and Roberts put it – and arguably justifiable.

Surveillance Is for Peons ONLY!

Nov 022013
 

The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis

By Bill Moyers
This is the full length 90 min. version of Bill Moyer’s 1987 scathing critique of the criminal subterfuge carried out by the Executive Branch of the United States Government.
Host Bill Moyers exposes the inner workings of the secret government. Though originally broadcast in 1987, it is even more relevant today. Interviews with respected, top military, intelligence, and government insiders reveal both the history and secret objectives. Where is Bill Moyers Now?

Sep 242013
 

Paying for your own Prison Cell

In overtly totalitarian countries, families of condemned state enemies are often required to pay for the bullets used to execute their loved ones. Two recent federal court rulings indicate that a very similar custom has taken root in proto-Soviet America.
On June 3, 2011, a man wearing a ski mask hurled a crude, improvised stink bomb through an apartment window in Laguna Beach, California. The payload of that infernal device was butyric acid produced through fermentation of milk and cheese. Several people complained about the noxious odor, but nobody was hospitalized. On a garage door of the targeted building, the attacker spray-painted the demand, “Stalk someone else.”
Without any solid leads, and acting on rumors, the Laguna Beach PD dispatched a SWAT team a day later to raid the Rowland Heights, California home of Marilyn Injeyan, a 71-year-old retired schoolteacher. Her son, Vahan, was described as a “person of interest” – not a suspect, mind you — in the stink bomb attack, which through the dubious miracle of Homeland Security hyperbole had been transformed into a “domestic terrorism” incident.
The first of the intrepid heroes through the door at Injeyan’s home was Laguna PD Sergeant Robert Rahaeuser. Fearing that the 5-foot-3, 125-pound female septuagenarian posed a genuine threat to his safety, the valiant Sgt. Rahaeuser ordered that the terrified and compliant woman be seized and handcuffed. The officer who carried out that order yanked Injeyan’s arms behind her back with sufficient force to tear both of her rotator cuffs. The shock and trauma caused the elderly woman to urinate on herself, and she wasn’t permitted to clean herself up or change her clothes for nearly a half-hour. Vahan Injeyan, who was undergoing cancer treatment at the time, wasn’t injured, nor was he taken into custody.

Neither Injeyan nor her son was ever charged with a crime. Although the original “terrorist” attack drove five families to leave their homes temporarily, and caused substantial property damage, none of the victims suffered any lasting injury. Marilyn Injeyan, on the other hand, had to undergo two expensive surgeries to repair her shoulders.

A few months after being assaulted by police in an entirely unjustified raid, Mrs. Injeyan filed a $290,000 damage claim with the City of Laguna Beach – an impressively modest amount, given the expenses incurred to the victim as a result of grotesque police overkill. After that claim was rejected, Marilyn filed a federal lawsuit. The City responded with a motion for summary judgment on the basis of the spurious and all-sufficient doctrine of “qualified immunity.”
On September 11 of this year, US District Judge Beverly O’Connell validated an act of state terrorism by upholding Laguna Beach’s claim for immunity. O’Connell accepted the assertion that a SWAT raid targeting a “person of interest” in a stink bomb attack was a proportionate use of force, and that the sadistic treatment inflicted on a submissive 71-year-old woman “was objectively reasonable when judged from the perspective of an officer on the scene who was executing a search warrant in connection with a crime of violence.”
A more honest summary of the judge’s finding is this: The standard of “objective reasonableness” regarding the use of force is defined by the officer’s capacity for self-preoccupation and his innate cowardice. Since Robert Rahaeuser is the kind of person who soils himself in terror at the sight of a tiny, unarmed 71-year-old woman, it is therefore “objectively reasonable” to order that she be shackled and treated like a threat to that most precious of all things, “officer safety.”
In fact, according to Judge O’Connell, it’s not necessary that the actions of police in terrorizing or brutalizing innocent people be regarded as “reasonable.” Their “cloak of immunity” remains intact even when they act “maliciously and without probable cause,” she concluded.

Pusillanimity of this kind, although repellent, is commonplace among police officers. It is tirelessly abetted by the tax-engorged unions that represent them, and universally indulged by the municipal cliques that hire them. Judge O’Connell added another layer of vindictive privilege to this familiar ritual by ordering the elderly, impoverished victim of police abuse to pay the legal costs incurred by the government whose agent had assaulted her without legal cause or moral justification.
The claim that police exist to “serve and protect” the public is among the most perversely durable falsehoods in human history. Police cannot be held criminally or civilly liable for failing to protect individual citizens from criminal violence. They also enjoy expansive “qualified immunity” against civil and criminal claims arising from official conduct that results in the injury or death of innocent people. Legal precedents extending back at least six decades recognize that police officers are exempt from a common law “duty to care” for innocent members of the public, unless some documented “special relationship” exists between specific officers and individual citizens.
This perspective is perfectly reasonable once it is understood that the police aren’t a body of civilian peace officers, but rather members of a paramilitary occupation force employed by a municipal corporation. As attorney Joseph Kogel pointed out while defending a similarly constituted organization in federal court, people who carry out such a role aren’t liable for their actions because the duty of care has been “remove[d] … from the battlefield.”
Kogel made that argument before the US District Court for Eastern Virginia in October, 2008, while defending the military contractor CACI International in a lawsuit brought by Iraqi torture victims. CACI was employed by the Pentagon and the CIA to carry out imprisonment and interrogation of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison.
In a lawsuit filed against CACI, former detainee Suhail Najim Abdullah al Shimari, who was seized in his home in November 2003, describes how he was held without charge or justification by CACI for more than four years.
During that time, he was subjected to electric shocks, endured frequent beatings, deprived of food and sleep, threatened with dogs, stripped and kept naked in his cell for extended periods, subjected to extremes of temperatures and sensory deprivation, and forced to watch as CACI contractors – including a spectacularly sadistic specimen named Timothy Dugan – abused other prisoners. On other occasions, Shimari was forced to stand on sharp stones until his feet bled.
CACI, which made tens of millions of dollars by imprisoning and torturing innocent Iraqis, has claimed that they enjoy “absolute immunity” from both criminal and civil liability.
Like the other “public-private partnerships” on which our modern fascist system has come to depend – beginning with the grand progenitor, the Federal Reserve – CACI can claim to be either a private corporation or a government entity, depending on present needs. As a private company, its operatives can’t be prosecuted for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. As a subcontractor for the Executive Branch in a war zone they can claim that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of Article III courts.
During an October 2008 hearing, Kogel took refuge in tautology, asserting that “it is appropriate to extend the immunity enjoyed by military interrogators to [CACI’s] civilian interrogators because to do the contrary would deprive the government of the ability to delegate functions when it determines it’s appropriate to do so….[I]f contractors are exposed to tort suits, they will be either unwilling to perform those functions and that of course impairs the ability of the government to delegate functions or [the contractors] will perform them only under conditions that may not be in the government’s long-term interest.”

Briefly and more lucidly stated, CACI’s argument is that its employees can’t be held liable for committing the crime of torture, because this would foreclose the possibility of the government hiring more torturers in the future.

In June, the US District Court in Eastern Virginia formally dismissed the lawsuit against CACI. The corporation promptly demanded that its victims pay $15,580 in legal costs. In a legal motion that would be breathtakingly cynical had not such cynicism become commonplace, CACI accused the victims of failing to present their case – and then observed that “the United States, in its considered judgment, apparently views three of the Plaintiffs as sufficiently threatening to the security of the United States that it would not allow them into this country even long enough to sit for a deposition.”
The Regime used a similar argument in 2007 to prevent Maher Arar – a Canadian citizen rendered to Syrian custody to be tortured by Bashar al-Assad’s secret police – from coming to the U.S. to testify. It has used a variation on that argument to justify the continued imprisonment of innocent men at Guantanamo Bay who have been cleared to leave, but are being detained because of concerns that they may become “security risks” on account of the abuse they have endured.
Under the emerging definition of official immunity, a victim becomes a “security risk” merely by protesting the abuse he or she has suffered at the hands of the Regime’s operatives. This is true whether the abuse occurred at Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, or the local police station.
Alicia Garafalo, a resident of Saratoga Springs, New York, attempted to file a complaint against an off-duty state trooper who allegedly assaulted her outside a tavern in 2009. Saratoga Springs police asked Garafalo to appear in court to sign a complaint against Trooper Kenneth Ahigian, whose brother Justin is part of the city’s police force. After she filed the complaint, state police rejected her claim – and two Saratoga Springs officers visited Garafalo’s workplace to issue a criminal citation for second-degree harassment and second-degree obstruction of governmental administration.
The abuse suffered by Garafalo, outrageous as it was, could be considered mild compared to the treatment inflicted on Monica Contreras. In August 2011, Contreras and her two-year-old daughter appeared in a Clark County, Nevada family court to respond to a petition for a protective order filed by her estranged husband. After hearing master Patricia Doninger dismissed the petition by Contreras’s husband, a court marshal named Ronald Fox ordered the very attractive young mother to accompany him into a witness room to undergo a drug search.
Disturbed by the prospect of being physically examined by a male stranger, Contreras requested that a female deputy conduct the search. What she didn’t know was that the “drug search” was a ploy by an opportunistic predator of a very common variety. After telling his victim that no female deputy was available, Fox sexually assaulted the terrified young mother by groping her intimate anatomy while making what were later described as “sexually abusive and harassing requests.”
When Fox was done with Contreras, she went back into the court to complain about her treatment. Fox then ordered that his victim be arrested for “making false allegations about a law enforcement officer.” That “offense” isn’t listed in any Nevada statute.

For several minutes, Fox and his gelatinous supervisor, James Kenyon, used the threat of an illegal arrest and the seizure of Contreras’s child in an attempt to extort a recantation of her accusation. When she refused, Kenyon handcuffed the weeping Contreras as her two-year-old daughter pleaded with him not to take her mother away.
“How could you do this to me?” Contreras pleaded as Doninger sat stolidly in the judge’s chair, pointedly ignoring the victim. “How could you watch? How could you watch?”
Contreras was taken to a holding cell where she was forced to undergo drug tests (which were negative). Her daughter was abducted by Child Protective Services and held for several hours before being released to the custody of her father. For several months, Contreras was allowed only to have limited and supervised visits with the hostage at a CPS-run facility.
The formal charges filed against Contreras by her abuser were “providing false information to a police officer” and “disturbing the peace.” They were dismissed in May 2012. By that time, the victim had filed an internal affairs complaint that led to an investigation that resulted in Fox’s termination by the Clark County Court System. Weep not for Ronald Fox: He has filed a legal motion for reinstatement, claiming that his termination violated “mandatory written procedures.”
The video of the August 2011 atrocity in Doninger’s courtroom is an amazing artifact, capturing as it does so many aspects of the compounded cruelty, corruption, and impunity that characterize the regime under which we live. Of particular note is the determined indifference displayed by Doninger as she sits with her back turned to the victim, conspicuously ignoring Contreras while playing with the two-year-old child who is about to be wrested, by force of arms, from her innocent mother.

Doninger is entirely representative of the robe-wearing functionaries who blithely issue no-knock SWAT raids now, and will, in all likelihood, soon be ratifying lethal drone strikes by police agencies. There’s no reason to believe that people of her ilk would scruple at ordering survivors of such summary executions to pay the expenses incurred in murdering their loved ones.
Many thanks to those who have donated to help keep Pro Libertate on-line. Any help you can provide will be very deeply appreciated. Thanks, once again — and God bless!

Dum spiro, pugno!

Sep 182013
 

The Constitution and the 3 Organic Laws

Introduction to the new Constitutional Law and welcome to the revised Basic Course in Law and Government

It is my pleasure, as Founder of the Organic Laws Institute, to present this short introduction to Constitutional Law as viewed
through the prism of the other three Organic Laws of the United States of America, the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777 and the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787.  This introduction has been especially written for the student new to the concept of the strict separation of written law from unwritten law for a more accurate study of law and government.

I can begin this introduction, appropriately, with the devious Preamble to the Constitution of September 17, 1787, the unofficial beginning of the last of the four Organic Laws, because I started my basic research into the much easier to understand transition of the federal courts in territories as those territories were admitted into the Confederacy, the United States of America, under the authority of the Articles of Confederation.  That research established that none of the federal courts have been ordained and established as judicial courts-they were merely legislated into existence. That research was easy compared to unraveling the Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The court research was easily confirmed by the way the Constitution of September 17, 1787 treated the alleged highest officer of the alleged highest federal court-the Chief Justice. The only duty imposed on the Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 Chief Justice is stated as follows: “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.”  Clause 7 of Section 3 of the first Article then makes it clear that Impeachment is a non-judicial proceeding resulting only in removal from office. It was now apparent to me that the Constitution was not what everyone believes it to be. Almost every natural born American believes he or she to be a Citizen of the United States and a member of the posterity of “We the People of the United States,” and that conclusion is exactly the misconception Gouverneur Morris was after when he wrote the Preamble. Gouverneur Morris is widely credited with writing other parts of the Constitution of September 17, 1787; he is one of only five men to sign both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. Gouverneur Morris knew both documents so well he managed to write one sentence that has fooled billions.

The language in the Preamble is some of the most duplicitous ever written yet every word has some truth in it.  The phrase, “We the People of the United States” in the Preamble to the Constitution of September 17, 1787, is never properly interpreted to mean the free inhabitants of the United States of America, who have become Citizens of one of the two kinds of States of United States of America. The accuracy of that interpretation is proven by asking, where do the people in the nine Article VII Conventions come from? Here’s how to make the constitutional connection between, “We the People of the United States…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America” to the People meeting for “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.”  “We the People of the United States” and the “Conventions of nine States” are the same “People”.  Free inhabitants had given up their freedom to become Citizens of the United States, just so they could vote in favor of State ratification of the Constitution of September 17, 1787, Taking on the mantle of citizenship may not have been much of a burden in 1787, but it has grown to be quite a hardship today.

Article IV of the Articles of Confederation secures to the free inhabitants of the several States of the United States of America the right to live free of government without any loss of the privileges and immunities of State citizenship:

The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from Justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; and the people of each state shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other state, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restriction shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any state, to any other state of which the Owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any state, on the property of the united states, or either of them.

When a free inhabitant becomes a Citizen of one of the two Unions that free inhabitant suffers a net loss in freedom, which is worse if the non-perpetual Union is picked.  The original stated purpose and intent of the Constitution of September 17, 1787 was to make revisions to the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777, which would make the administration of the Northwest Territory more efficient.  This was, of course, a subterfuge to hide a government power grab led by George Washington and supported by both the States and the federal government. Both the federal and State governments were becoming painfully aware that unless uprisings such as Shays Rebellion were ended permanently and soon every State and local government would be in danger of collapse.  In the end the Articles of Confederation were revised by the misrepresentation that the Constitution created a “more perfect Union” that Union was first created as a not so perfect temporary one by the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787.

Now, practically every American believes himself or herself to be among “We the People of the United States,” the “more perfect Union,” without realizing that by being one of the “People of the United States” much freedom is lost.  Because of the complexity written law, hardly anyone knows the Articles of Confederation have not been replaced or repealed.  The perpetual Union of States of the United States of America bound to Article IV of the Articles of Confederation is dormant not dead.  My Organic Law Institute can help you awaken the sleeping giant, the United States of America. President George W. Bush was briefed “the Constitution is just a piece of paper.”  The Organic Law Institute will provide you with the legal education, so you can prove that and much more.

Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera

Ed Rivera’s mailing list
List@edrivera.com

Sep 172013
 

The Worst Holiday of the Year

Send him mail.

“One Voluntaryist’s Perspective” is an original column appearing most Mondays at Everything-Voluntary.com, by the founder and editor Skyler J. Collins. Archived columns can be found here. OVP-only RSS feed available here.

Tomorrow, September 17th, is Constitution Day in the United States. Many will either gather to or independently pay homage to the United States Constitution. This document ostensibly created and gave the necessary authority to the Federal government. It was believed that its predecessor, the Articles of Confederation, created a federal government that was too weak to accomplish anything meaningful. Though the drafters of the Constitution were originally tasked with amending the Articles, and proceeded instead to replace it entirely, that the Constitution went through a ratification process ensured everyone that it did indeed give the requisite authority to the newly formed government. But did it really? Did the new government have proper authority to exercise its delegated powers over the then territorial boundary of the thirteen colonies? After considering a few important facts, I think its claim to authority is just that, a claim, but one which no one is really bound to honor.

No Authority

Every libertarian and voluntaryist knows that majority rule is invalid as a governing principle. Some people, no matter how numerous, can’t simply vote away the liberties of others. Unless you’ve committed a crime, an act of aggression, I have no right to restrict your actions on or to take your property by the use of force. And because I have no right to such, I and a group of others haven’t that right either. This is a very basic principle in political philosophy. After the Constitution was drafted, it went through a ratification process. At every point leading up to this, majority vote decided the outcome. Majority vote chose the convention delegates and the ratifiers, and majority vote in many of the colonies decided ratification. Clearly, based on the above principle, none of this was valid. Again, majorities can’t take away (through voting) the liberties of others, and both the newly formed State governments and Federal government did just that. Dissenters at every level retained there liberties to act as if their governments didn’t exist.

Criminals, Most of Them

That those who drafted and ratified the Constitution lacked the authority to do so is easy to show using the above analysis, but let’s go further. In 18th century America, most people were not allowed to participate in elections. Men without landed property, women, children, and slaves were all excluded from the political process. Only white men with land had the privilege of voting for or becoming delegates (drafters) and ratifiers. The wealthy, in other words. That they were wealthy there is no doubt, but what was the source of that wealth? Most were slaveholders, meaning, they forcibly exploited others to build their wealth. Under the libertarian theory of justice, the rightful owners to that wealth were actually the slaves themselves*. Their masters were mala in se criminals. What are the implications of that?

Do criminals have the right to use their stolen wealth as evidence of their “right” to participate in a political system that restricts participation to the wealthy? Do criminals have the right to draft a new Constitution, thereby creating a new federal government with the powers of taxation, regulation, and monopoly dispute adjudication? Do criminals have the right to ratify the new Constitution, thereby delegating to it said powers over the rest of society within a given territorial boundary? Do criminals have the right to vote away the liberties of noncriminals? I can’t think of a single reason why criminals, whose crimes are the forceful kidnapping, imprisonment, and subjugation of innocent people, would have the right to do any of these things.

Final Thoughts

It’s simple, really. The Constitution has no authority, nor does the Federal government that it created. The powers it exercises are an usurpation of the rights and liberties of all Americans. Likewise every other government within and without the United States. Though every government commits acts of aggression against its own people, the United States has a sordid history of both domestic and foreign aggression. Constitution Day is really a celebration of one of the greatest crimes in the history of the world, and of the criminals who committed it. I can’t in good conscience observe what is arguably the worst holiday of the year.

* Either as the real creators of that wealth, or as it was owed to them as reparations for generations of slavery.

Aug 132013
 

Americans Giving Up Passports Jump Sixfold as FATCA Rules Loom

By Dylan Griffiths – Edits Morpheus Titania

Americans renouncing U.S. citizenship surged sixfold in the second quarter from a year earlier as the government prepares to introduce tougher asset-disclosure rules.

Expatriates giving up their nationality at U.S. embassies climbed to 1,131 in the three months through June from 189 in the year-earlier period, according to Federal Register figures published today. That brought the first-half total to 1,810 compared with 235 for the whole of 2008.

The U.S., the only nation in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that taxes citizens wherever they reside, is searching for what it calls “tax cheats” in offshore centers, including Switzerland, as the government tries to curb the budget deficit. Shunned by Swiss and German banks and facing tougher asset-disclosure rules under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, FACTA more of the estimated 6 million Americans living overseas are weighing the cost of holding a U.S. passport.

“With the looming deadline for FATCA, more and more U.S. citizens are becoming aware that they have U.S. tax reporting obligations,” said Matthew Ledvina, a U.S. tax lawyer at Anaford AG in Zurich. “Once aware, they decide to renounce their U.S. citizenship.”

FATCA somehow requires foreign financial institutions to report to the Internal Revenue Service information about financial accounts held by U.S. taxpayers, or held by foreign entities in which U.S. taxpayers hold a substantial ownership interest.  The US government is the biggest bully on the planet, other institutions, in sovereign nations, are buckling to the will of the, Out of Control BORG GOVERNMENT.  It was estimated these Draconian rules will suck 8.7 billion FRN’s into the coffers over 10 years, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.

The people that are expatriating are some of the most wealth individuals in the US.  Their wealth will not be able to be used creatively for projects that will improve the quality of life for those living in the US.  As more and more people continue to see the US not as the light on the hill but the “Policeman” who’s actions mimic the greatest Criminals mind ever created. Those people with their resources will continue to leave and find places they can be left alone.

Delaying Implementation

The 2010 FATCA law requires banks to withhold 30 percent from “certain U.S.-connected payments” to some accounts of American clients who don’t disclose enough information to the IRS. While banks can sign agreements to report to the IRS individually, many are precluded from doing so by privacy laws in their jurisdictions.

The Treasury Department last month announced that the IRS will delay the start of FATCA by six months until July 1, 2014, to give foreign banks time to comply with the law. The extension of the act follows a previous one-year delay announced in 2011.

Financial institutions including Canada’s Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD) and Allianz SE of Germany have expressed concerns that FATCA is too complex.

The latest delay comes after the Swiss government agreed in February to simplifications that will help the country’s banks implement FATCA.

Penalty Threat

“The United States wishes to ensure that all income earned worldwide by U.S. taxpayers on accounts held abroad can be taxed by the United States,” the Swiss government said on April 10.

Since 2011, Americans, who disclose their non-U.S. bank accounts to the IRS, must file the more expansive 8938 form that asks for all foreign financial assets, including insurance contracts, loans and shareholdings in non-U.S. companies.

Failure to file the 8938 form can result in a fine of as much as 50,000 FRN’s. Clients can also be penalized half the amount in an undeclared foreign bank account under the Banks Secrecy Act of 1970.

The implementation of FATCA from July next year comes after UBS, Switzerland’s largest bank, paid a 780 million FRN penalty in 2009 and handed over data on about 4,700 accounts to settle a tax-evasion dispute with the U.S. Whistle-blower Bradley Birkenfeld was sentenced to 40 months in a U.S. prison in 2009 after informing the government and Senate about his American clients at the Geneva branch of Zurich-based UBS AG. (UBSN)

Compliance Costs

The additional compliance costs for companies to ensure that Americans they hire are filing the correct U.S. tax returns and asset-declaration forms are at least 5,000 FRN’s per person, said Ledvina.

For individuals, the costs are also rising. Getting a mortgage or acquiring life insurance is becoming almost impossible for American citizens living overseas, Ledvina said.

“With increased U.S. tax reporting, U.S. accounting costs alone are around 2,000 FRN’s per year for a U.S. citizen residing abroad,” the tax lawyer said. “Adding factors, such as difficulty in finding a bank to accept a U.S. citizen as a client, it is difficult to justify keeping the U.S. citizenship for those who reside permanently abroad.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Dylan Griffiths in Geneva at dgriffiths1@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Frank Connelly at fconnelly@bloomberg.net

Further edits by Morpheus morpheus@titanians.org