ETERNAL VIGILANCE

Nevada Coinage Bill

Much as been written about the State of Nevada issuing their own one ounce silver coin with a face value of $20. Of course, in comparison it makes the $10 Liberty Dollar look twice as good and points out the inherent greed of government. In any case, it builds further support for NORFED’s goal to return America to value.


Want to change the country? Now you change the money and get paid too!


AB 532 - Nevada Silver Coin Bill – states that the U.S. Government has abdicated its responsibility as defined in the Constitution that Congress would issue all money. Instead Congress has unlawfully delegated this power to the private Federal Reserve Bank violating the terms of the Constitution. This failure of Congress absolves Nevada from its constitutional obligations not to issue money.

The Nevada Bill provides that the State of Nevada shall issue into circulation silver coins with a face value of $50,000,000. The coins will contain one ounce of silver and feature the Great Seal of the State of Nevada on one side and that it contains one Troy Ounce of Fine Silver, Nevada Legal Tender, and Twenty Dollars on the other side. Nevada will stop minting coins when Congress again provides constitutional money.

It is hoped, that if this bill is passed, it will help Nevada’s economy and provide non-tax revenue for the State. It will also help to educate many about the unconstitutional debt based Federal Reserve notes, we call money. Bill AB 532 follows:



AN ACT relating to state financial administration; directing the issuance of Nevada silver coins; providing that such coins are legal tender for all debts in this state; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.



THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, REPRESENTED IN

SENATE AND ASSEMBLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:



Section 1. Chapter 353 of NRS is hereby amended by adding
thereto the provisions set forth as sections 2 and 3 of this act.

Sec. 2. The Legislature finds that:

1. The State of Nevada, at the time of its admission to the
United States, was a sovereign entity on equal footing with the 13
sovereignties that formed the compact known as the Constitution
of the United States.

2. In ratifying and approving the Constitution of the United
States, Nevada agreed to delegate certain of her sovereign powers
to three agencies of government, all in the form provided by the
Constitution.

3. Among the powers delegated by Nevada was the sovereign
power to issue money. That power was delegated by Nevada and its
sister states to the Congress of the United States in Section 8 of
Article I of the Constitution of the United States, on condition that
the Congress would issue all money.

4. Nevada also, in Section 10 of Article I of the Constitution
of the United States, agreed not to issue its own money. This
agreement was also conditioned upon the Congress discharging its
obligation to issue money as the agent of Nevada and its sister
states.

5. The purported delegation by the Congress of the power to
issue money to the Federal Reserve Bank, a privately owned
corporation, is a violation of the terms of the Constitution of the
United States.

6. The failure of the Congress to discharge its obligation to
issue all of the money pursuant to Section 8 of Article I of the
Constitution of the United States absolves the State of Nevada
from its constitutional obligation not to issue money.

Sec. 3. 1. The State of Nevada shall issue into circulation
coins of the State of Nevada in the face amount of $50,000,000.
The coins must contain 1 ounce of fine silver, must be alloyed to
90 percent fineness and must bear The Great Seal of the State of
Nevada on one side and the words “Contains One Troy Ounce
Fine Silver,” “Twenty Dollars,” “Nevada Legal Tender” and the
year of issue on the other side. The coins so issued are legal tender
for all debts, public and private, in this state.

2. Except as otherwise provided in this section, when the
coins authorized by subsection 1 are received into the State
Treasury, they must be reissued. The coins must not be held as a
reserve except as the Legislature otherwise directs.

3. If the number of coins subject to the control of the State
Treasurer diminishes to 500,000, the State of Nevada shall make
successive issues of coins in accordance with subsection 1 in the
face amount of $50,000,000, unless the total face value of the
coins already issued is $500,000,000, in which case the State of
Nevada shall issue no further coins without prior approval of the
Legislature.

4. If the Legislature of the State of Nevada determines that
the Congress of the United States is fulfilling its constitutional
obligation to issue money by:

a) Requiring the Federal Reserve Bank to retire its
circulating notes; and

(b) Causing the issuance of sufficient notes of the United
States and other currency to meet the needs of the commerce of
the United States and of Nevada,
the State Treasurer shall retire the coins authorized by this section
as they are received into the State Treasury.

Sec. 4. This act becomes effective upon passage and approval.


Updates will be provided as they become available. We urge citizens of Nevada to contact their representatives in the State Assembly and Senate and urge they co-sponsor and support this legislation.

American Legal System Is Corrupt Beyond Recognition, Judge Tells Harvard Law School

By Geraldine Hawkins
March 7, 2003

The American legal system has been corrupted almost beyond recognition, Judge Edith Jones of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, told the Federalist Society of Harvard Law School on February 28.

She said that the question of what is morally right is routinely sacrificed to what is politically expedient. The change has come because legal philosophy has descended to nihilism.

Judge Edith H. Jones of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit talks to members of Harvard Law School's Federalist Society. Jones said that the question of what is morally right is routinely sacrificed to what is politically expedient.

"The integrity of law, its religious roots, and its transcendent quality is disappearing. I saw the movie 'Chicago' with Richard Gere the other day. That's the way the public thinks about lawyers," she told the students.

"The first 100 years of American lawyers were trained on Blackstone, who wrote that: 'The law of nature dictated by God himself is binding in all counties and at all times; no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all force and all their authority from this original.' The Framers created government of limited power with this understanding of the rule of law - that it was dependent on transcendent religious obligation," said Jones.

She said that the business about all of the Founding Fathers being deists is "just wrong," or "way overblown." She says they believed in "faith and reason," and this did not lead to intolerance.

"This is not a prescription for intolerance or narrow sectarianism," she continued, "for unalienable rights were given by God to all our fellow citizens. Having lost sight of the moral and religious foundations of the rule of law, we are vulnerable to the destruction of our freedom, our equality before the law and our self-respect. It is my fervent hope that this new century will experience a revival of the original understanding of the rule of law and its roots.

"The answer is a recovery of moral principle, the sine qua non of an orderly society. Post 9/11, many events have been clarified. It is hard to remain a moral relativist when your own people are being killed."

According to the judge, the first contemporary threat to the rule of law comes from within the legal system itself.

Alexis de Tocqueville, author of Democracy in America and one of the first writers to observe the United States from the outside looking in, "described lawyers as a natural aristocracy in America," Jones told the students. "The intellectual basis of their profession and the study of law based on venerable precedents bred in them habits of order and a taste for formalities and predictability." As Tocqueville saw it, "These qualities enabled attorneys to stand apart from the passions of the majority. Lawyers were respected by the citizens and able to guide them and moderate the public's whims. Lawyers were essential to tempering the potential tyranny of the majority.

"Some lawyers may still perceive our profession in this flattering light, but to judge from polls and the tenor of lawyer jokes, I doubt the public shares Tocqueville's view anymore, and it is hard for us to do so.

"The legal aristocracy has shed their professional independence for the temptations and materialism associated with becoming businessmen. Because law has become a self-avowed business, pressure mounts to give clients the advice they want to hear, to pander to the clients' goal through deft manipulation of the law. While the business mentality produces certain benefits, like occasional competition to charge clients lower fees, other adverse effects include advertising and shameless self-promotion. The legal system has also been wounded by lawyers who themselves no longer respect the rule of law,"

The judge quoted Kenneth Starr as saying, "It is decidedly unchristian to win at any cost," and added that most lawyers agree with him.

However, "An increasingly visible and vocal number apparently believe that the strategic use of anger and incivility will achieve their aims. Others seem uninhibited about making misstatements to the court or their opponents or destroying or falsifying evidence," she claimed. "When lawyers cannot be trusted to observe the fair processes essential to maintaining the rule of law, how can we expect the public to respect the process?"

Lawsuits Do Not Bring 'Social Justice'

Another pernicious development within the legal system is the misuse of lawsuits, according to her.

"We see lawsuits wielded as weapons of revenge," she says. "Lawsuits are brought that ultimately line the pockets of lawyers rather than their clients. The lawsuit is not the best way to achieve social justice, and to think it is, is a seriously flawed hypothesis. There are better ways to achieve social goals than by going into court."

Jones said that employment litigation is a particularly fertile field for this kind of abuse.

"Seldom are employment discrimination suits in our court supported by direct evidence of race or sex-based animosity. Instead, the courts are asked to revisit petty interoffice disputes and to infer invidious motives from trivial comments or work-performance criticism. Recrimination, second-guessing and suspicion plague the workplace when tenuous discrimination suits are filed creating an atmosphere in which many corporate defendants are forced into costly settlements because they simply cannot afford to vindicate their positions.

"While the historical purpose of the common law was to compensate for individual injuries, this new litigation instead purports to achieve redistributive social justice. Scratch the surface of the attorneys' self-serving press releases, however, and one finds how enormously profitable social redistribution is for those lawyers who call themselves 'agents of change.'"

Jones wonders, "What social goal is achieved by transferring millions of dollars to the lawyers, while their clients obtain coupons or token rebates."

The judge quoted George Washington who asked in his Farewell Address, "Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths in courts of justice?"

Similarly, asked Jones, how can a system founded on law survive if the administrators of the law daily display their contempt for it?

"Lawyers' private morality has definite public consequences," she said. "Their misbehavior feeds on itself, encouraging disrespect and debasement of the rule of law as the public become encouraged to press their own advantage in a system they perceive as manipulatable."

The second threat to the rule of law comes from government, which is encumbered with agencies that have made the law so complicated that it is difficult to decipher and often contradicts itself.

"Agencies have an inherent tendency to expand their mandate," says Jones. "At the same time, their decision-making often becomes parochial and short-sighted. They may be captured by the entities that are ostensibly being regulated, or they may pursue agency self-interest at the expense of the public welfare. Citizens left at the mercy of selective and unpredictable agency action have little recourse."

Jones recommends three books by Philip Howard: The Death of Common Sense, The Collapse of the Common Good and The Lost Art of Drawing the Line, which further delineate this problem.

The third and most comprehensive threat to the rule of law arises from contemporary legal philosophy.

"Throughout my professional life, American legal education has been ruled by theories like positivism, the residue of legal realism, critical legal studies, post-modernism and other philosophical fashions," said Jones. "Each of these theories has a lot to say about the 'is' of law, but none of them addresses the 'ought,' the moral foundation or direction of law."

Jones quoted Roger C. Cramton, a law professor at Cornell University, who wrote in the 1970s that "the ordinary religion of the law school classroom" is "a moral relativism tending toward nihilism, a pragmatism tending toward an amoral instrumentalism, a realism tending toward cynicism, an individualism tending toward atomism, and a faith in reason and democratic processes tending toward mere credulity and idolatry."

No 'Great Awakening' In Law School Classrooms

The judge said ruefully, "There has been no Great Awakening in the law school classroom since those words were written." She maintained that now it is even worse because faith and democratic processes are breaking down.

"The problem with legal philosophy today is that it reflects all too well the broader post-Enlightenment problem of philosophy," Jones said. She quoted Ernest Fortin, who wrote in Crisis magazine: "The whole of modern thought has been a series of heroic attempts to reconstruct a world of human meaning and value on the basis of our purely mechanistic understanding of the universe."

Jones said that all of these threats to the rule of law have a common thread running through them, and she quoted Professor Harold Berman to identify it: "The traditional Western beliefs in the structural integrity of law, its ongoingness, its religious roots, its transcendent qualities, are disappearing not only from the minds of law teachers and law students but also from the consciousness of the vast majority of citizens, the people as a whole; and more than that, they are disappearing from the law itself. The law itself is becoming more fragmented, more subjective, geared more to expediency and less to morality. The historical soil of the Western legal tradition is being washed away and the tradition itself is threatened with collapse."

Judge Jones concluded with another thought from George Washington: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens."

Upon taking questions from students, Judge Jones recommended Michael Novak's book, On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense.

"Natural law is not a prescriptive way to solve problems," Jones said. "It is a way to look at life starting with the Ten Commandments."

Natural law provides "a framework for government that permits human freedom," Jones said. "If you take that away, what are you left with? Bodily senses? The will of the majority? The communist view? What is it - 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need?' I don't even remember it, thank the Lord," she said to the amusement of the students.

"I am an unabashed patriot - I think the United States is the healthiest society in the world at this point in time," Jones said, although she did concede that there were other ways to accommodate the rule of law, such as constitutional monarchy.

"Our legal system is way out of kilter," she said. "The tort litigating system is wreaking havoc. Look at any trials that have been conducted on TV. These lawyers are willing to say anything."

Potential Nominee to Supreme Court

Judge Edith Jones has been mentioned as a potential nominee to the Supreme Court in the Bush administration, but does not relish the idea.

"Have you looked at what people have to go through who are nominated for federal appointments? They have to answer questions like, 'Did you pay your nanny taxes?' 'Is your yard man illegal?'

"In those circumstances, who is going to go out to be a federal judge?"

Judge Edith H. Jones has a B.A. from Cornell University and a J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law. She was appointed to the Fifth Circuit by President Ronald Reagan in 1985. Her office is in the U.S. Courthouse in Houston.

The Federalist Society was founded in 1982 when a group of law students from Harvard, Stanford, the University of Chicago and Yale organized a symposium on federalism at Yale Law School. These students were unhappy with the academic climate on their campuses for some of the reasons outlined by Judge Jones. The Federalist Society was created to be a forum for a wider range of legal viewpoints than they were hearing in the course of their studies.

From the four schools mentioned above, the Society has grown to include over 150 law school chapters. The Harvard chapter, with over 250 members, is one of the nation's largest and most active. They seek to contribute to civilized dialogue at the Law School by providing a libertarian and conservative voice on campus and by sponsoring speeches and debates on a wide range of legal and policy issues.

The Federalist Society consists of libertarians and conservatives interested in the current state of the legal profession. It is founded on three principles: 1) the state exists to preserve freedom, 2) the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution and 3) it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to state what the law is, not what it should be.

‘Bushonomics’ Plays Dangerous Game With Solvency, Deficit Spending, Shady Accounting, Social Security

In order to avoid complete financial collapse, the George W. Bush administration is playing a dangerous game with the U.S. economy.

by Al Martin

In a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC opinion poll, only 18 percent of the people claim they actually understand what a budget deficit is. And out of all the respondents, only 6 percent understood the deleterious effects that ever-expanding budget deficits have on economic growth.

When their check bounces and they get charged twenty bucks at the bank, these people probably ask, “Hey, why am I being penalized here? This is just a budget deficit.”

Now, the Bushonian regime is encouraging American business and industry to borrow from future revenues and there is now a record number of companies selling on these delayed credit deals. You buy something for zero down, zero interest, and no payments for a year for consumer purchases like washing machines, TV’s and cars. And this is all done to maintain the consumption numbers.

Because of this we have decided to explain once and for all the meaning of Bushonomics and the scourge it represents to the American economy.

This borrowing from future sales is the latest pernicious effect of Bushonomics and now they’re doing it at levels unprecedented.

The people of the United States, wearing their hats as consumers, in the last 12 months have “spent” more than $500 billion in expenditures on these delayed payment programs. And this means that business and industry is stealing from future sales in order to maintain sales now.

Of course what happens is that this makes it very difficult for an economic recovery to take hold because these future payments act like an anchor around the neck of the economy.

This does bode well for the repo market. The repossession industry is the only industry in the country that is growing. Pawnshops are also doing well as are money-lending services, which have grown 36 percent in the past year. Psychiatrists and mental health facilities are also enjoying record business.

The key word for the future is “vig” as in “What’s the magic word for the New Era of Bushonomics? Vig.” Bushonomics is revitalizing an old concept in order to survive Bushonomics in the future, make the vig…or else.

Let us explain the concept of vig, or vigorish, for you.

If you’re a business owner or consumer in this environment, the only way you are going to survive is to pay the vig, or the egregious interest payments on the loans you’ve made.

Coincidentally, the Bush regime in the past 12 months has quietly allowed the states to relax the usury laws.

There is a federal usury limit, although the states regulate individual usury laws within a federal limit.

The federal limit is 36 percent, but a lot of the states have imposed 24 percent caps.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) had a lawsuit going against the Money Store for “we’ll cash your check this week and you don’t have to pay till next week” crowd.

DOJ finally figured out that you’re paying about 78 percent or so per annum. They had filed a suit against Money Store, Amoco and a lot of check cashing places for violation of the usury laws. And that lawsuit has been quietly withdrawn.

When that lawsuit was withdrawn larger and more mainstream businesses and industries took it as a sign that they could now literally charge what they want.

Both the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office have stated that Bushonian budget deficits are unsustainable beyond 2009 – when it will reach $1 trillion per annum.

UNSUPPORTABLE

People Who call into and ask me what does it mean when they say “unsupportable.” When a nation can’t sell any more bonds to support its debt, it means economic collapse.

Instead of using the government’s own language to say that deficits are unsupportable beyond a certain period of time, you have to tell people that budget deficits will lead to economic collapse. It sounds frightfully shrill to say it that way but it’s true.

I often wonder how Bush can stay in power. It’s only because he is governing a nation of people who are too manipulated to understand what he’s doing to the nation’s economy.

Under Bushonomics, all economic growth is a fallacy. It only exists on paper. The total debt of the U.S. government exceeds its total assets. The total debt of all business and industry also exceeds their total assets.

And then there’s the pro forma loophole. All publicly held businesses and industries report their earnings on both a pro forma and an adjusted basis. The adjusted basis is always less than the pro forma. Pro forma means according to the broadest interpretation of generally accepted accounting principles. Fully adjusted would be taking out all special interest payments, accrued reserves, accrued contingent funds for future liabilities, etc.

The analogy of business to U.S. government is that all government statistics are issued on a pro forma non-adjusted basis.

The U.S. government does not issue fully adjusted numbers and it’s only pro forma numbers. If the U.S. government was forced to issue fully adjusted revenue numbers, then it would have to start to make contingencies for future debts and obligations – something the Bushonian administration is steadfastly against.

In 1995 when the Clinton regime attempted to push through the recalculation of pro forma to include adjustments, the Republicans fought it like heck and defeated it, knowing that when they got back into office – had they not defeated it – it would have closed again another loophole which allows Bushonomics to continue.

If the Treasury Department were forced to make capital surplus reserves for future liabilities both actual and contingent the deficits would balloon.

And I always have to say that the reason debt service is so low is because the United States, unlike other countries, only services about half of its outstanding federal debt at any one time – because so much debt is not counted as debt, such as the deficit in the Social Security trust funds.

The accumulated deficits, which now total more than $2 trillion in the 42 other public trust funds, are also not counted as debt. This is at the very heart of Bushonomics.

Of course, a country that has the ability through “creative accounting practices” to only service half of its debt is always going to be able to stay between 18 percent and 26 percent of the budget. That’s all it will have to commit to debt service because as time goes by under Bushonomics, the government services less and less of its debt.

This gets a little more complex. People ask me how a government can actually service less of its debt over time insofar as the principal amount of that debt continues to rise.

You can do that under the crafty smoke-and-mirrors accounting procedures which Bushonomics incorporates. You do it by reducing future liabilities vis-à-vis that debt.

The Social Security Trust Fund is a classic example. Each year that goes by, the future liability of the Social Security Trust Fund grows – as population growth continues. Furthermore, future liability grows as the median life span of the nation – now at 77 years, an all time high – continues to increase.

However, to get around that, so they do not have to show an even larger future contingent liability, the government simply recalculates the basis of future payments to make those payments lower.

This is the plan that is the Bushonian 2029 Social Security Readjustment Plan, wherein between now and 2029, the age at which you can collect Social Security gradually rises and it’s not going to be 62 and 65. It will rise to 65 and 67,and then from 67 to 70. The Bush administration tries to justify this by saying that the median life span of the nation is growing.

In the future, beginning in 2017, Social Security payments will be calculated on an annuitized basis, i.e. an actuarial table, instead of a fixed payment scheme. That will immediately reduce Social Security payments by at least 50 percent.

The Republicans feel perfectly free in talking about annuitization because they understand that the American people don’t know what they’re talking about.

The Social Security trust fund must be annuitized by 2016 to 2017. These dates are important because the general trust fund that pays pensions to old people cannot financially survive beyond 2017 without a reduction in payments.

Al Martin is America’s foremost expert on corporate and government fraud. His weekly column “Behind the Scenes in the Beltway” is published regularly online at Al Martin Raw. This story appeared in the weekly newspaper, American Free Press, May 26, 2003, Volume 3, Number 21.

OIL ON YOUR FRENCH TOAST
THE FRENCH, GERMANS AND RUSSIANS DIDN'T WANT A WAR IN IRAQ

March 21, 2003

The French had a very good reason not to go along with the US in the War in Iraq. For over 50 years US oil companies and US policy have "stolen" French oil properties and contracts which has cost the French trillions of dollars.

In 1954 the French lost Vietnam at the battle of Dien Bien Phu because the US did not send any assistance. Actually at the end of WWII, the US had given a good portion of the massive amount of weapons, stored on Okinawa in 1945 for the final land invasion of Japan, to Ho Chi Min to assist his program to "nationalize" French Indo-China, which is now the independent country of Vietnam.

Thus General Giap of 'Nam war fame got his weapons from the US, to drive out the French and later the US. But it was all carefully planned. The result was that the French lost a vast oil-rich property, and the US took over in South Nam. After the contrived Gulf of Tonkin Incident in 1964, for 10 years US oil companies did a secret seismic oil survey offshore of South Vietnam from 1965 to 1975 under the guise of spent bombs dropping in the sea from returning US jets to the offshore carriers.

Less than a decade later, in 1985 when the new independent nation of Vietnam finally opened up the offshore region for oil exploration, only Chevron knew where to put their bids and get the oil-rich undersea tracts. The Vietnamese had gotten a "free" oil survey to make them one of the largest petroleum producers in Asia and Chevron hardly paid a nickel, since Uncle Sam had "paid" for the survey. All the many other nations who also bid on undersea oil lots only came up with very costly dry holes. The French never even had a chance.

Also in 1954 when the French were being driven out of the French north African colony of Algeria by "home-grown nationalist" uprisings, again the US refused to help. The result was the French lost the colony in 1962 after 8 years of brutal war and the loss of millions of casualties. When the newly independent Algeria opened up the desert for oil prospecting, darn if it wasn't Texaco-Mobile-Chevron who got all the goodies and the French got nothing. Algeria is one of the largest oil producers in Africa. The French were starting to see a pattern.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the CIS and a year later, Russia was ready and willing to sell its vast supply of Black Sea and newly found Caspian Sea oil to get some badly needed international cash. But how to get the oil to the customers? The Black Sea oil was already filling up the narrow Bosporus channel through the ancient city of Istambul, Turkey with a daily conga-line log jam of oil tankers. But the Russians found another way to get the new found oil to their big European customers, the French and Germans. Just take oil barges and bypass the narrow Bosporus and simply sail up the wide Danube River from the northwest edge of the Black Sea.

The Blue Danube goes right up past Romania, the old Yugoslavia, the Czech Republic, Austria and right into downtown refineries in Germany and France just miles away from the river. It was a good deal for the Russians, the Germans and the French. Cheap Russian oil direct from the producer, with no middle-man charging high OPEC or US market prices. That is, until the Serbian/Kosovo war in 1999.

While nobody was paying attention, the Clinton administration bombed and dropped all the bridges across the Danube in Serbia. Why did they do that? That action instantly stopped all river traffic for the next 10 years. So now what are the Russians, French and Germans to do? They are all losing money and their economies hit a sharp downturn in 1999. The Russians can't sell their oil to make quick cash and the French and Germans need to buy oil from the "American multi-national oil companies" at the higher double-markup spot market price.

In 1999, all three countries found a willing go-between who would transport the oil for cheap. It was Saddam Hussein right next door in Iraq. He needed the cash he could make as an oil transporter. He couldn't sell his own oil by UN edict, but he could legally pipe Russian Black Sea and Caspian Sea oil right through the Caucasus Mountains through existing Iraqi pipelines to the Persian Gulf and then the cheap Russian oil is sent direct to the customers in Europe. Since it wasn't Iraqi oil, its all legal and the French, Russians and Germans were fat and happy with Saddam's minimal markup for transport. And if Saddam slipped in some of his own oil in the process, who's to know.

Then along comes G. W. Bush and stops the process. No more oil is piped through Iraq. Russia, Germany and France are upset, they are losing billions. They don't want to go along with Bush on any war in Iraq. Bush wants to "free" Iraq from that Saddam guy and then the control of Rusian oil shipments through Iraq would again be by Texaco-Mobile-Chevron. And even bigger is Standard Oil. But where is Standard? In January 1988, Standard merged with British Petroleum to form the world's largest international oil explorer, marketer and shipper. But the merged mega-giant took the name BP-America, later just BP, to make you think its a British company. Not! Its still Standard Oil but now wearing "environmentalist BP-green" just to fool you.

But "the Iraqi oil belongs to the Iraqi's," justifies Bush, but the Germans and French don't care. They don't want the Iraqi oil, only that cheap Russian oil coming through the Iraqi pipelines. And of course, without Saddam, the price for being the middleman who runs the Iraqi pipeline spigot suddenly shoots up. The Russians lose market share, the Germans and French pay the higher world market price. The French are now really pissed. They finally clearly see the devilish 50 year old pattern. The French, along with most other countries in the world, see US President Bush and British Prime Minister Blair as the guerilla hitmen snipers for BP, nee Standard Oil.

That explains why the French want Bush and Blair to take a long flying leap off a short pier. It wasn't Americans or American policy that had gypped the French for the last 50 years. It was the "American" multi-national oil companies. Most foreigners don't distinguish between the hated exploitative big-oil companies and the Americans. To most foreigners, America is the oil company. Now you know why the French, Germans and Russians did not go along with the UN resolution to attack Iraq. Would you willingly vote to double the price of energy in your country? Now you know why there is oil on your French Toast. Can you blame them?

If you are not old enough to remember WWII, the Vietnam War or the many 1954 “American oil takeovers” in French Indo-China, Algeria, and even Venezuela and Iran, then you probably would believe all the media hype that the War in Iraq is about Iraqi oil. Not so. Its about the only existing oil pipeline direct from the Russian oilfields to the Persian Gulf. He who owns that pipe controls the world price of oil, simply by opening and closing the spigot. The vast Russian oil reserves make the Saudi and OPEC oil fields look lilliputian.

And if you did not know about that Iraqi pipeline then you would believe that the “shock and awe” tactics were aimed at shocking and fooling the Iraqi’s. Not so. It was aimed at you. While you were watching the fabulous fireworks on TV as the bombs fell on Baghdad, you did not notice what the British-American coalition ground troops were really doing. Within hours the troops had rushed in and taken control of the southern pipeline terminal and tank farm facilities at the Persian Gulf port of Basra.

Likewise the troops quickly took control of the northern pipeline facilities at Kirkuk and Mosul in the Caucasus mountains. That was to make sure that in the confusion of war, the Turks did not rush in and take control of the area. For decades the Turks have wanted to wrest control of the area from the Kurds so that Turkey would become the major pipeline for Russian oil. But that is not in the BP-Standard oil plan. General Tommy Franks knows who he is working for. He made sure that never happened.


Marshall Smith
Editor, BroJon Gazette

Thursday, June 05, 2003
IRS MAKES 'TIME BARRED' ASSESSMENT
REQUIRED TO ISSUE TOTAL REFUND TO TAX HONESTY ADVOCATE

Kennett Square, Pennsylvania - After over two years of litigation, the IRS is required by law to refund approximately $13,000.00 to Tax Honesty Advocate and Libertarian activist, Ken Evans.

"This is a huge victory," said Evans, "and demonstrates once again that the misapplication of the federal income tax is the single greatest financial fraud in world history."

In the spring of 2000, Evans sent a letter to the IRS asking how much, if anything, he owed for the tax year 1999 and further asked for a refund of anything in excess of what the law said he owed. The IRS did not respond. Nine months later and in accordance with federal law, Evans filed a refund lawsuit in Federal District Court in an attempt to require the IRS to refund his money or provide evidence to the contrary.

Shockingly, throughout the entire lawsuit, the Department of Justice, which represented the IRS, did not at any time make the argument that Evans actually owed income tax. The DOJ simply claimed that Evans was 'required to file a return.' However, in direct contradiction to the DOJ's position, an IRS Supervisor informed Mr. Evans on tape that he was not required to file an income tax return. This was later reinforced further by IRS internal computer documentation, which confirmed Evans' lack of a requirement to file a return.

Yet, in June, 2001, the District Court dismissed Evans refund claim and stated in its opinion, "...this Court rejects all of Evans' arguments concerning his income tax liability for the 1999 tax year."

So how much did the Court say that Evans owed? Well, the Court didn't actually say that Evans owed anything. In fact, the Court couldn't because the Department of Justice did not provide any evidence of Evans' liability.

So, what now? Well, there are specific procedures that the IRS is required to follow in order to establish liability. In Evans' case, however, the IRS seems to have thrown those procedures out the window.

"In my case, the evidence is so overwhelming that IRS and DOJ employees see the law more as a hindrance than as something they are required to obey," Evans comments, "Even though the statutes and regulations of federal law themselves do not say that I owe income tax, the IRS tried to illegally create a record of assessment, which is considered prima facie evidence of liability. These procedures, which the IRS has been engaging in for decades, are now being exposed for the fraudulent activity that they are. This is due, in part, to the IRS Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998. This act made public the internal codes that the IRS uses in the computer files that it keeps on Americans."

Evans continues, "Every step of the way, the IRS has violated the law. In June of 2002, the IRS sent me a Notice of Deficiency in relation to 1999. This specific action was illegal because the IRS is required to provide me with an Appeals Conference prior to its issuance, yet they did not. They went so far as to lie about the reason that they denied the conference. But, their crowning fraudulent achievement was the recordation of a time barred assessment on November 18, 2002 ."

The law requires the IRS to make assessments within specific time periods in order to be valid. Yet, in Evans' case, internal IRS documentation proves that an IRS agent illegally recorded a time barred assessment in Evans' computer file. Further, federal law requires the IRS to notify individuals of assessments within sixty days. But, the IRS has not yet sent Evans a 'Notice and Demand for Payment,' even though the assessment was recorded over one hundred days ago.

"This doesn't surprise me in the slightest," said Evans, "The IRS will go to almost any length to hide this fraud. The only reason that I am even aware of the time barred assessment is because I contacted the IRS of my own volition and asked a random IRS employee for a printout of their computer file on me. The agent that made the assessment obviously didn't send me a Notice and Demand for Payment because he knows that the assessment is illegal."

Victoria Osborne, a Forensic Accountant of TPI Associates (http://www.tpirsrelief.com) has confirmed that the IRS is required to issue a complete refund plus interest to Evans.

For more information contact:

Ken Evans
873 East Baltimore Pike - PMB 464
Kennett Square, PA 19348
610-636-4407
kevans@dca.net
www.reasons2vote.com

What does Alan Greenspan really think?



alt=NotRealHappyWiththeGovernment? Click Here for RealMoney at a Discount." border="0">



TERRORISM AND OIL


An excerpt from: "World Trade Center: Uncensored History" by Ralph Schoenman

"In the almost immediate aftermath of the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, authorities already were sounding the alarm that a terrorist network was involved and they were specifying Osama bin Laden and Islamic fundamentalists in the al-Qaeda network of Osama bin Laden himself.

The authorities were not disclosing that this very network had been established by the Central Intelligence Agency and that, indeed, Osama bin Laden and his associate Gulbuddin Hekmatyar had received $6 billion from the U.S. intelligence agencies, to create precisely a terrorist network, not merely in Afghanistan but in Pakistan and beyond indeed in Uzbekistan and in Tajikistan and the surrounding area.
The authorities were quick to point the finger at a demonic figure; but if we look carefully at the press, we begin to see that in fact the authorities, the government of the United States, its intelligence agencies and its spokespersons were not telling us the truth.

The San Francisco Chronicle on the 12th of September reported in an article with a headline, "Willie Brown Got Early Warning About Air Travel," that Mayor Willie Brown was scheduled to fly from San Francisco to New York on the morning of the 11th, but he received on Monday, the 10th, a call from what he described as his airport security people advising him that he couldn't travel on that day and that he should cancel his flight.
The reporter states that where exactly the call came from is a bit of a mystery and the mayor would only say that it came from my security people. The San Francisco Chronicle reported, as well, on the 14th of September, that former U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz had received a State Department memo issued a week before cautioning that Americans would shortly be the target of a terrorist attack.

In fact, four days before the attacks on New York and Washington, this State Department memo specified that these attacks on buildings would be coming from extremist groups with links to Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda organization. Schultz stated, "I don't know what intelligence lay behind the warning, but they had to have had some sort of advanced intelligence. He received, in fact, notification on September 7th -- a worldwide warning, and this from the State Department to former Secretary of State George Schultz.

Perhaps this series of things prompted the Chronicle to run a story with the headline "How Could the United States Not Have Known?" This article cites the government of India's intelligence services, which had passed on, prior to the event, specifics about it to the United States authorities.

The government of India, the article states, had intelligence on the attacks before they happened. The Chronicle states that India's intelligence apparatus claimed to have intercepted communications about the attacks on buildings on September 11th and passed them on to the U.S. authorities. ...

We're dealing with something here that is more than meets the eye. We have to look, as well, in the light of this, at what occurred in 1993. At that time, if you remember, there was an attack on the World Trade Center.
Indeed, it was attributed to followers of a blind Egyptian cleric, who, it was said, was involved in organizing this event. We find, however, that the person who had promoted the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, Emad Ali Salem, was an Egyptian intelligence agent and a long standing operative of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

He conceived of the plan, he recruited people to it, he wore a wire while he was discussing the operation, he made transcripts of each meeting that were than deposited in the offices of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

For a period of six months the FBI had fifty boxes of such documentation about the planned bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. You may recall that at the time the newspapers made much of the fact that the young driver of the Ryder rental van, who presumptively was carrying explosives to the World Trade Center, had gone to the rental agency to ask for a refund.

They made fun of this young man, who obviously had been induced to rent the van without much knowledge of the intent.

What we did learn and what we were able to document is that the person who organized the apartment where the meetings were held, who secured the van and made those arrangements was Guzi Hadas a very well known Mossad operative.

The hand of the FBI and of the Mossad is all over the bombing events of the World Trade Center in 1993. ...

Organized terror in the world today, wherever we find it, traces back to U.S. intelligence agencies. The American people are being terrorized, without doubt. It is time we ask challenge official fiction and answer with massive evidence the question of the day: By whom?

Nina Burleigh, who has written for the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune and New York Magazine, and as a reporter for Time Magazine was one of the first U.S. journalists to enter Iraq after the Gulf War, published an article called "Missing the Oil Story."

She describes the following. Here's a small slice of what ought to provoke deeper research by American reporters with resources and talent. Start with father Bush. The former President, the ex-CIA director, is hardly unemployed. He's the globe-trotting member of Washington's Carlyle Group, a $12 billion equity firm that employs a motorcade of ranking Republicans, including Frank Carlucci, Jim Baker and Richard Darman. Bush senior and colleagues open doors overseas for the Carlyle Group's access to capitalists.

The abiding relationship between corporate capitalism in the United States and the state power it has captured has not gone unnoticed by reporters or by independent organizations seeking to protect the interests of the broader population in the United States.

Charles Ricci of the Washington-based Center for Public Integrity puts his finger on the real nature of state power in capitalist America and the war drive they require.

George W. Bush will benefit financially from his own administration's decisions and through his father's investments. That, to me, is a jaw-dropper. Where does that take us with respect to the war In Afghanistan? We find that global businessmen, like Bush Senior and Jim Baker, care about who runs Afghanistan, and not because it's a home base for lethal anti-Americans.

It happens to be in the middle of their own interests, a region with abundant oil. By 2050, Central Asia will account for more than 80% of U.S. oil," according to the industry publication, Oil and Gas Journal.

This industry publication reports that "Central Asia represents the world's last great frontier for geological survey and analysis, offering opportunities for investment, production, transportation, and refining of trillions of dollars of oil and gas services" (emphasis added).

It's assumed, Nina Burleigh writes, "that we need unimpeded access to the 'stans,' (by which she means Uzbekistan, Khazakstan, Turkmenistan and Tajikstan) for our oil people, our geologists, our pipelines, if we are to realize the future outlined recently by Vice-President Cheney.

A series of projects carries Central Asia's resources west, already underway. Each route will be within easy reach of the Taliban. There's lots of oil beneath the turf of our politically precarious newest friend Pakistan. Massive, untapped reserves are lying underneath Pakistan's remotest deserts.

Held hostage by armed tribal groups, they demand a better arrangement, reports Agence France Presse days before September 11th. Well then, what about the Caspian Sea, and what about Central Asia and what about the motivation for U.S. policy makers in this war, which, we have been told initially that it will last for years. Next we were assured that the war will last for decades and now, Donald Rumsfeld has informed us, that this perpetual war against as many as sixty countries will not be over in our lifetime. ...

The Sub-Committee on Asia and the Pacific heard testimony from John J. Maresca, Vice-President of International Relations of Unocal Corporation, on February 12th 1998. ...

Unocal Vice-President, John Maresca continues, "The region's total oil reserves will reach more than 60 billion barrels of oil in the short term and our estimates are as high as 200 billion barrels. In 1995, the region produced 870 thousand barrels. By 2010, Western oil companies will increase this production to 4.5 million barrels a day, an increase of 500%. Our major problem, he says, "has yet to be resolved. How to gain control and to get the region's vast energy resources to markets where they are needed.

Then he talks about a consortium of eleven foreign oil companies including Unocal, Amoco, Exxon and Penzoil. To any who may be familiar with the San Remo Agreements of April 24, 1920, when the European powers and the United States carved up the Middle East and decided on the percentages of oil they would own and exploit respectively.

We are revisiting this agenda for Central Asia. Maresca informed the congressional committee: "We contemplate a pipeline south from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean. The only possible route is across Afghanistan, which presents its own unique challenges because the country is involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades and is divided by civil war.

We have made it clear that construction of this pipeline will not begin until a recognized government has been put in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders and our company. As you know, Mr. Chairman, we are working very closely with the University of Nebraska in developing a training program in Afghanistan which will operate in both parts of the country, the north and the south.

Maresca proceeds to describe a Central Asian Gas Pipeline Consortium, which he calls CentGas, in which Unocal will hold a decisive interest. His testimony elaborates upon the imperial plans for the oil wealth of Central Asia.

This theme is echoed by other such ruling class think tank personnel. The World Policy Journal carried this study in the spring of 1998 by Ian Bremmer, called "Oil Politics, America and the Riches of the Caspian Basin". He is virtually salivating:"We can barely measure the Caspian wealth. Proven oil reserves range from $15 to 30 billion, comparable to those of the North Sea.

Final estimates range up to $200 billion dollars. Proven natural gas reserves exceed 350 trillion cubic feet, comparable to North American reserves. Total Caspian reserves will be double that figure. Oil Politics and the Riches of the Caspian Basin" is the title of his contribution.

Then we have the Heritage Foundation which is a arena for the Central Intelligence Agency and the Mossad. Their study contributed by Ariel Cohen, Senior Policy Analyst, on July 24th 1997: "U.S. Policy in Central Asia: Building a New Silk Road." He proceeds to table estimates of recoverable oil and gas resources in the Caspian region.

Cohen poses the challenge: "How best do we secure access to the oil and natural gas reserves in the first half of the 21st century? The oil and gas reserves of Eurasia's Caspian Sea will provide the United States with the solution to this challenge. They are the abundant resource, second in size only to an unstable Middle East. The Caspian reserves, 200 billion barrels of oil, are worth $4 trillion, at current market prices (emphasis added).

In 1997, the price per barrel crude oil averaged $20. It is currently $27 per barrel, an increase of 35%. The series of wars that are being prepared by U.S. rulers under the cover of the events of September 11th will trigger greater increases in the price of crude oil.

Thus, the projected profits of Unocal, Chevron, Amoco, Halliburton and the multiplier effect through the leveraging of these profits through bank lending vastly exceed the estimates of $5 trillion. The crude oil, moreover, is only part of the story, as Cohen is quick to project: The regions of natural gas," he continues, "are simply enormous." ...

©Ralph Schoenman, October 2001

"World Trade Center: Uncensored History" by Ralph Schoenman, the complete 5-hour broadcast on audiocassette or CD format, $50 (send your check or money order to Veritas Press, PO BOX 6345, Vallejo CA 94591)