The Unsorted BBS Collection/thegreatunsorted.tar/thegreatunsorted/texts/txtfiles_misc/frogfarm.14

Text File | 1994-02-01 | 47KB | 1,199 lines

Welcome to the fourteenth installment of the Frog Farm. This installment
contains:

0) Administrivia
1) Hell, U.S.A.
2) Law Libraries on the Internet: A Partial Listing
3) Forwarded from the Internet
4) "Tax Havens on the Internet", from the Cypherpunks list
   (forwarded by a Frog subscriber)
5) Random Thoughts on a New Age Order, or, The Relevance of
   Individual Sovereignty

**

Administrivia

The home computer's power supply has been fixed, and once more I'm "wired" to
the Net. However, I held off on sending this issue out until I wrote something
original (for the first time in quite a while). It's article #5.

PLEASE GIVE ME FEEDBACK!!!!! I WANT TO KNOW! What do you think of the quality
of the articles? Of the Frog Farm in general? If you've shared the information
with others, how it was received? What was their reaction? Have any of them
gone on to do further research on their own? Passed the information on to even
more people? TALK TO ME!!!!

Aggggggh. I'm done ranting now. I'm down with a particularly nasty bug right
now and can barely breathe, and just feeling particularly frustrated. Thanks
for subscribing.


**

[This is the most recent version of a "timeline" I'm working on to show famous
(and infamous) moments in the history of the North American continent in
regards to the freedom enjoyed by individuals. Any corrections, additions,
etc., are highly welcomed and encouraged.]


 Descent Into Hell
 or,
 Moments in American History: Statism v. Freedom


[pre-1400's; Indian "legislation" and justice system -- need more on this!]

[1492-1776; colonial -- need more here too!]

1775 - Beginning of War for Independence
1776 - Declaration of Independence

1794 - Whiskey Rebellion. Protest by farmers over corn liquor tax is
       suppressed by overwhelming force under the command of Dictator
       George Washington. All but two farmers are acquitted, and George
       graciously pardons them.

1798 - Sedition Act; violates 1st Amendment; establishes 1st half of
       4th plank of Communist Manifesto (Confiscation of the property
       of all emigrants and rebels)

1801 - On Thomas Jefferson's recommendation, the federal duty on liquor
       is abolished.

1836 - Establishment of the Independence of Texas
1845 - Annexation of Texas

1845 - New York State prohibits the public sale of liquor.

1847 - New York State repeals the prohibition on public sale of liquor.

1848 - Child Labor Act says children may only work with State approval

1857 - Dred Scott decision says "niggers ain't got no rights"

1868 - 14th Amendment; removal of allodial land titles, allowing only
       "equitable interests" in land and property; creation of new class
       of "citizens" without rights, only privileges; establishes 1st plank
       of Communist Manifesto (Abolition of property [rights] in land)

1887 - Interstate Commerce Commision Act; establishes 1st half of 6th
       plank of Communist Manifesto (Centralization of the means of
       communication and transport in the hands of the state)

1890 - Sherman Anti-Trust Act makes it illegal to go into business

1903 - Coca-Cola switches from cocaine to caffeine

1906 - Food and Drugs Act

1909 - Prohibition of importation of opium.

1913 - Federal Reserve System (theft through control of 'money' supply);
       16th Amendment (income theft); establishes 2nd plank of Communist
       Manifesto (A heavy progressive or graduated income tax) and 5th
       plank (Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means
       of a national bank with state capital and exclusive monopoly)
     - 17th Amendment; violates Article 4, Section 4 of Constitution which
       guarantees "A Republican form of Government"

1914 - Harrison Narcotic Act; controls sale of opium and its derivatives

1916 - Estate tax; establishes 3rd plank of Communist Manifesto (Abolition
       of all right of inheritance)

1917 - War controls, tax increases

1919 - 18th Amendment (Volstead Act; alcohol prohibition)

1924 - Heroin manufacture prohibited

1930 - Federal Bureau of Narcotics established

1933 - Prohibition repealed
     - House Joint Resolution 133 (attempted theft of people's gold)

1934 - The Communications Act; establishes Federal Communications
       Commission; establishes 2nd half of 6th plank (Centralization of the
       means of communication and transport in the hands of the state)

1935 - Socialist Insecurity Act (more income theft)

1937 - Marijuana Tax Act

1942 - WW2 controls & taxes

1964 - "Johnson slugs"

1968 - Public Law 90-369 (attempted theft of people's silver)

1970 - Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) enables
       seizure of property without due process; with Sedition Act,
       establishes 4th plank of Communist Manifesto (Confiscation of
       the property of all emigrants and rebels)

1972 - Complete split of FRN's from gold by Richard Nixon


Still need to add:

 - [ Hoover's New Deal & Smoot-Hawley tariffs? ]
 - [ FDR's taxes & 2nd amendment infringement & prohibition phase 2? ]
 - [ Title 17 Health and Safety Code -- zoning/public school taxes?
     This is other half of 1st Plank, along with 14th Amendment ]
 - [ Post-1972 developments in the "War on (Some) Drugs" ]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Planks of Communist Manifesto not yet added to above:


7) Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by
the state; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the
improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

 90's version: Anti-Trust Acts; Dept. of Commerce & Labor; Dept. of
Agriculture; Dept. of Interior (Bureau of Land Management, Forest
Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park
Service, Fish & Wildlife Service)

 Accomplished: est. 1902; 1903; 1862; 1849.

8) Equal liability of all to labor for the national debt;
establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

 90's version: "Two income families" (inflation, nat'l debt);
Women's Suffrage; Affirmative Action; Socialist Unions; Int'l
Workers of the World

 Accomplished: Women in workforce since 1920's (19th Amendment);
Civil Rights Act of 1964; est. 1869; est. 1905.

9) Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries;
gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by
a "more equitable distributiuon" of the population over the country.

 90's version: National Farmers Alliance and Industrial Union

 Accomplished: 1870-1900's (Title 17 "zoning")

10) Free education for all children in public schools, abolition of
children's factory labor, combination of education with industry.

 90's version: State run, tax financed schools; socialized
"progressive" education; Child Labor Act (children only work with
state approval); abolition of private education.

 Accomplished: Horace Mann (1837-1848); John Dewey (1870-1910);
est. 1848.



**


[Please let me know if any of the sites on this list are no longer running.]

Law Library Catalogs on the Internet


key:
----

LB: name of library
TA: telnet address
TS: type of system
LI: login instructions
LW: instructions for limiting to law library in a multi library system
EX: exit instructions
GU: Name of a guide with a fuller description than this list



list:
-----


LB: Columbia University Law Library
TA: pegasus.law.columbia.edu
TS: Innopac
LI: At the login prompt, enter pegasus
EX: Select J on the main menu.
GU: Barron

LB: Drake University Law Library
TA: lib.drake.edu
TS: DRA
LI: Type lawlib at the username prompt.
EX: Type <CTRL-Z>
GU: Barron

LB: Emory University Law Library
TA: emuvm1.cc.emory.edu
TS: IBM DOBIS
LI: After the VM screen is displayed, press ENTER to get a CP READ. Type
   DIAL VTAM and press ENTER.  At the VTAM screen, type LIB and
   press ENTER.  When the CICS screen appears, press the PF1 key.  The
   next screen will be the initial library systems screen.
GU: St. George

LB: Georgia State University Law Library
TA: library.gsu.edu
TS: PALS
EX: Type $$soff
GU: St. George

LB: Iowa State University Law Library
TA: isn.iastate.edu
TS: NOTIS
LI: At the DIAL prompt, type LIB.  You will then be prompted for a terminal
   type. VT100 is recommended.  At the VTAM screen, type SCHOLAR2.
EX: St. George

LB: Marquette University Law Library
TA: libus.csd.mu.edu
TS: Innopac
LI: Press RETURN twice for the login prompt.  Type M and press RETURN
   to see a list of valid terminal types.  Select your terminal type.
EX: Choose Quit from the main menu.
GU: St. George

LB: Minnesota Legislative Reference Library
TA: msusgw.umn.edu
TS: PALS
LI: At the "enter destination" prompt, type PALS.
LW: type SET LIB LRL
EX: Type END.

LB: Minnesota State Law Library
TA: msusgw.umn.edu
TS: PALS
LI: At the "enter destination" prompt, enter PALS.
EX: Type END.

LB: New York University Law Library
TA: mclib0.med.nyu.edu
TS: Innopac
LI: At the login prompt, type library.
LW: For the Law Library, select A on the main menu and then 2 on the next
   menu.
EX: To exit, hit D.
GU: Barron

LB: Southern Methodist University Law Library
TA: vm.cis.smu.edu
TS: NOTIS
LI: You must use TN3270 to access PONI.  Once you get to the distinctive
   signon screen, enter PONI.  Then clear the CICS "good morning" message
   and enter LUSM.
EX: Press clear twice and enter CSSF LOGOFF.
GU: St. George

LB: University of Baltimore Law Library
TA: victor.umd.edu
TS: CARL
LI: Select PAC from the Available Services Menu
EX: Type //EXIT
GU: St. George

LB: University of Colorada Law Library
TA: pac.carl.org
TS: CARL
GU: St. George

LB: University of Dayton Law Library
TA: udaprl.oca.udayton.edu
TS: DYNIX
LI: At a blank screen type LOBIN PUB02 and press RETURN.  At Password?
   type PUBLIC and press RETURN.  You will be asked to choose a
   terminal type.  Choose AddsViewPoint, VT100 or ANSI. When you see
   "Welcome to the University of Dayton" screen, access the help screen by
   typing ?
EX: Choose LOGOFF from the main menu or type Q and press RETURN.
GU: St. George

LB: University of Denver Law Library
TA: pac.carl.org
TS: CARL
GU: St. George

LB: University of Manitoba Law Library
TA: umopac.umanitoba.ca
TS: PALS
LI: At the UML> prompt, type BE.
EX: To exit, type $$SOFF
GU: Barron

LB: University of Maryland Law Library
TA: victor.umd.edu
LI: Select PAC from the Available Services Menu.  Select 5 for VT100
   terminal type. Press RETURN twice.
EX: To exit, type //EXIT.
GU: Barron

LB: University of Maryland at Baltimore Law Library
TA: victor.umd.edu
TS: CARL
LI: Select PAC from the Available Services menu.
EX: Type //EXIT
GU: St. George

LB: University of Michigan Law Library
TA: lexcalibur.lib.law.umich.edu
TS: Innopac
LI: At the login: prompt, type um-lex.   Enter v for VT100 terminal emulation.
   Enter Y to confirm.
EX: To exit, type D at the main menu.
GU: Barron

LB: University of Nebraska - Lincoln Law Library
TA: unllib.unl.edu
TS: Innopac
LI: At login type: library (lower case letters only).
EX: Type D at the main menu.
GU: St. George

LB: University of North Dakota Law Library
TA: msusgw.umn.edu
TS: PALS
LI: At the "enter destination" prompt, type PALS.
LW: At the MUS> prompt, type SET HOST ODN.  Insert UNE between the
   search command and the search argument.
EX: AT the ODN> prompt, type SET HOST LOCAL.  Then at the MUS>
   prompt, type END.

LB: University of Pennsylvania Law Library
TA: lola.law.upenn.edu
TS: Innopac
LI: At the login prompt, type lola.  Enter v for VT100 terminal emulation.
   Enter Y to confirm.
EX: To exit, type D on the main menu.
GU: Barron

LB: University of Pittsburgh Law Library
TA: gate.cis.pitt.edu
TS: NOTIS
LI: At the Service: prompt, type PITTCAT and press RETURN.  At the Select:
   prompt, select the type of terminal you are using.
GU: St. George

LB: University of South Dakota Law Library
TA: msusgw.umn.edu
TS: PALS
LI: At the "enter destination" prompt, enter PALS.
LW: At the MUS> prompt, type SET HOST SDN and hit enter.  Insert SDL
   between the search command and the search argument.
EX: At the SDN> or SDL> prompt, type SET HOST LOCAL.  Then at the
   MUS> prompt, type END.

LB: University of Tulsa Law Library
TA: bull.utulsa.edu
LI: At the request to logon, type in upper case letters LIAS.TU.  You will be
   asked to identify your user category and hardware.
GU: St. George

LB: University of Virginia Law Library
TA: ublan.acc.virginia.edu
TS: Innopac
LI: Press RETURN until >> prompt appears.  Type CONNECT LAW at the
   >> prompt.  Enter V for VT100 emulation.  Enter Y to confirm.
EX: Enter D from the main menu.  At the >> prompt, enter QUIT.
GU: Barron

LB: Washington and Lee Law Library
TA: iii.library.wlu.edu
TS: Innopac
LI: At the login prompt, type LIBRARY
LW: limit location to LAW
EX: Enter D at the main menu.
GU: Barron

**

Forwarded from the Internet:

>From: [e-mail] (131PA0000-MesenbrinkB(DR9175)243)
Organization: AT&T
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: NWO, Federal Reserve & class action suit
Keywords: NWO, banks, claims, federal reserve
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 20:12:40 GMT
Lines: 150


I recently attended a couple of the meetings about claims that can be
filed against the US government. I found out about this from Robert
Reinhardt's postings. He encouraged me to post my story here. And I
suppose I should state that all I am doing here is reporting my
experiences so that others can be informed. I am not responsible in
any way for actions taken as a result of this posting.

The first meeting was sponsored by Gary Whitman, one of a growing
number of claims writers on October 14. He holds these meetings twice
a week. His organization is called American Freedom Resources.

Gary and Jim Breen explained how our government has been
manipulated by large banking interests since the early days. That the
banks have been in control since 1913 when the Federal Reserve was
formed, IRS was formed, and the American Bar Association was formed.
Those three events have lead to the current situation with our economy
and government in general. But all that is changing.

They claimed that on October 13, CSPAN showed Alan Greenspan saying
that the Federal Reserve was being audited (the first time in
history).

They said that on Mar 17, the IRS commisioner told the speaker of the
house that the IRS was "in chapter 11." I could not find this in the
Congressional Record, but if I had known  the name of the IRS
commissioner I could have used the index. I didn't try to find the
Greenspan statement. Printed material from this group said that
Greenspan had attempted suicide - obviously questionable.

Other claims that they made:

Banks fraudulently collected huge amounts of money in the past 80
years. Money was sent out of the country. Before 1976, income taxes
went directly to the treasury, now they go to the federal reserve. Other
fraudulent means were used to take money. Credit Life insurance
required for some loans was actually default loan insurance. If a loan
defaulted, the bank collected the insurance and claimed the property
too.

Banks are now being forced to conform to new banking regulations that
require them to have gold behind all their money. If they don't
conform they are being closed. On October 8, five banks were taken
over by the US treasury.(I have not confirmed that fact and would be
interested in hearing if anyone saw something on this.)

The original 13th amendment would have prohibited those holding titles
of nobility from holding elected office. Members of the bar are
entitled to use "Esquire" and hence would not be eligible for
office.
This amendment was ratified but that fact was lost / covered up in the
confusion of the Civil War. The Supreme Court has secretly reinstated
this amendment this year and will publicly announce it on November
13.

They then discussed the case and the resulting claims for damages that
can be made. More later.

The second meeting was held October 15. This was a bigger group, over
a hundred fifty people crammed into a small lecture hall. The
sponsoring organization was "We The People". The name "Flying Eagle
Resources" is also mentioned frequently. This meeting opened with a
pledge of allegience and prayer as did the first.

Norman Tuttle spoke first. He claimed that the 16th amendment (IRS) was
probably never ratified by more than one or possibly two states.

He claimed that in 1982 when a constitution of the District of
Columbia was established, it became the constitution of the US.

He said that only 22% of US currency is in this country.

He said that we were very, very close to losing our freedom to the New
World Order at the end of 1992.

And then there was this incredible claim: In 1992, airline pilots
reported seeing huge bases/camps appearing across the country. It was
discovered that they held UN troops! There were five camps, one in
Alaska capable of holding 2 million people, one in Oklahoma and
one in Nevada and two in the northeast. They were eventually to be
concentration camps. The joint chiefs of staff forced the troops
out. They made the three presidential candidates sign a document,
after which Bush never again used the words "New World Order".

A delta force returned trillions (800?) of dollars from foreign
banks. Foreign governments agreed to this in exchange for forgiveness
of debts owed to us.

Joe Mentlick spoke next. He discussed the situation with the class
action law suit against the government. It seems that a bunch of
foreclosed upon farmers and businesspeople and patriots are using the
system to bring itself down. They say that it is all settled now, and
the people won. People are entitled to make a claim. That includes
you.

The claims are for incredible amounts of money. For example, they
state that even a newborn is entitled to $8.25 million. Every loan
since 1933 can be claimed at face value plus principal and interest
paid. So a mortgage for $100,000 that was refinanced once would result
in a claim for $200,000 for the original mortgage plus interest paid
and $100,000 for the second mortgage plus principal and interest. Not
only do you claim your own loans but also those of your parents. But
that's just pocket change. You can claim $5 million for death in the
family since that was probably the result of financial stress. $5
million if you don't have a four year degree. And it goes on.

The people themselves seem credible. They seem like honest people who
have been in trouble financially. Some are tax protesters. They seem
like people just trying to get the word out. But, their story seems
incredible.

But they don't really have any proof. Just items out of the newpaper
and TV that they speak of, and anonymous statements from parties
involved. And they talk about the gag order on the class action law
suit which limits what they can say and what we can find out. For
example, the court records are sealed. It would sure be nice to be
able to go to the court house here in Denver and check some of this
out. Also, their stories don't totally agree with one another. The two
meetings presented slightly differing views on how to figure claims.
Information on the video that I have contradict with these meetings as
well. It seems like when you file a claim, there is no way of knowing
whether the forms are filled out correctly, or whether the claim forms
got filed. There is no status report. Supposedly, the next thing that
happens is you get paid. And that won't happen until the money and
banks are backed by gold. There is no date, but they say that it is
happening now. They claim that the matter is all settled, that all
claims will be paid %100. But I am not convinced.

On the other hand, they ask $300 for fees to file a claim. It takes an
hour or so to go through the paper work with them. They hold all these
meetings, three a week here in Denver. They have to pay for offices
and meeting rooms and phone lines. So $300 for a claim doesn't seem
unreasonable and I can see where a portion of it goes. If this is a
scam, they are not making much money in my opinion, especially with so
many involved.

So would you pay $300 in hopes of receiving millions? You could treat
it like a $300 lottery ticket. In any case, we can hope that at least
the government and banks are getting straightened out.  And at the
very least, discussion of this conspiracy is being spread even
further.

Bob Mesenbrink
Denver, CO

--

[Gyro Gearloose forwarded me the following piece from Libernet Digest.]


>From [e-mail]  Tue Oct 26 06:20:03 1993
From: [e-mail] (Felix Gorney Mfg 4-6983)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 93 03:54:59 CDT
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Liberty Amendment


Full text of the Liberty Amendment, as introduced in Congress as H.J. Res. 23:

Section 1. The Government of the United States shall not engage in any
business, professional, commercial, financial, or industrial enterprise,
except as specified in the constitution.

Section 2. The Constitution, or laws of any state, or the laws of the United
States shall not be subject to the terms of any foreign or domestic agreement
which would abrogate this amendment.

Section 3.  The activities of the United States government which violate the
intent and purpose of this amendment, shall within the peiod of three years
from the date of the ratification of this amendment, be liquidated, and the
properties and facilities affected shall be sold.

Section 4.  Three years after the ratification of this amendment, the
sixteenth article of amendments to the constitution of the United States shall
stand repealed and thereafter Congress shall not levy taxes on personal
incomes, estates and/or gifts.


The legislatures of these nine states have passed resolutions requesting
Congress to send the Liberty Amendment out for ratification:

1. Wyoming    5. Georgia
2. Texas      6. South Carolina
3. Nevada     7. Mississippi
4. Louisiana  8. Arizona
              9. Indiana


I was in error to report in a previous posting that the Liberty Amendment had
been ratified by nine states. As you can see, those states requested that the
Amendment be sent out to the states for ratification. Petitions are being
circulated in support of this resolution. You can obtain these, and/or send
them to the following address. They will also be very happy to receive
donations.

Yes on 23 / Liberty Amendment
Box 2386
El Cajon, CA 92021

(619) 579 - 8500


This Proposed amendment is short, and to the point. I particularly like
section 1. This would outlaw government corporations, a neat little device
used by our govt. to circumvent the Constitution, and have us "voluntarily"
give up our rights. It is these unseen fraudulant contracts, which we have
supposedly agreed to, which make us liable to pay income taxes in the first
place. As you can see, this proposed amendment has covered all bases.

Felix

--

[I don't necessarily agree with the seeming tone of "no cause for alarm" here,
but the legal reasoning is sound. Despite appearances, we do still live under
the rule of law, and will unless there is widespread violence/destruction. As
long as the courts exist, a knowledgable pro se should be able to come out a
winner, each and every time.]


>From: [e-mail] (Bernie Cosell)
Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers
Subject: Martial law
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 03:55:57 GMT
Lines: 64

Well, given the underwhelming response to my inquiry, I went and did the
unexpected: I tried to look up some info on martial law.  I realize that
probably nobody but me cares about this kind of detail, but such is life...

What I discovered is that there are _two_ notions that get bundled under the
term 'martial law'.   One involves the suspension of civil rights and the
replacement of the Article III court system with a military court [I think
that this latter part is really the hallmark of this sort of martial law]; the
other involves Executive action to deploy troops for matters of civilian law
enforcement.

The doomsayers [e.g., consider the recent thread stemming from the request of
the mayor of DC for National Guard help] confuse the two and assume that an
instance of the latter implies the imminent imposition of the former.  NOT
TRUE.

_real_ martial law is a very restricted matter.  I guess there is a bit of a
logical conundrum at play: if Congress were to pass an act declaring martial
law, such an act would presumably disempower the Supreme Court, and so they
wouldn't be in a position to review the law and declare it unconstitutional.

On the other hand, I happened to recently rereading Marbury v Madison and it
is clear that the SC would _not_ take such an end-run to their review powers
lightly... dunno quite what they could do but it is for-sure that the SC, and,
I would certainly hope, the American populace, would not take lightly having
the Congress just be able to void the Constitution by passing a law to that
effect.

But what *can* Congress do about this sort of martial law then?  This is
fairly clear, I think: the military is allowed to impose military law *only*
in a theatre of military operations.  Basically, the SC's position is that if
there is sufficient order for the civilian court system to be functioning,
then military courts *cannot* be imposed [Ex Parte Milligan (1866); reaffirmed
in Duncan v Kahanamoku (1946).

What about the other type of 'martial law'?  Well, that's quite a different
matter: the President *can* order the "Army and Navy of the United States and
... the Militia of the several States" to intercede in domestic matters.  BUT:
that has [so far] *only* been used to quell domestic disorder _or_ to enforce
the law.  [The first instance was by President Washington, who used state
militias to quell the Whiskey Rebellion; we're all familiar with other ones:
LBJ sending troops into Alabama, Kennedy sent troops to Mississippi].  But in
these cases, there's no instance that I've been able to dig up info in which
the troops so-called-up were used for extra-Constitutional activities --- just
enforcement and peace-restoring matters.

So I think that the alarmists are really offbase here --- I had suspected so,
but my research, scanty though it was, confirmed my suspicions: _real_ martial
law is a very serious matter and would only really be a consideration in a
true theatre of war [and no, the "War on Drugs" doesn't count, no matter what
the rhetoric you hear].  Simple deployment of militia/federaltroops is not
really the same thing at all, and in any event such deployments only occur in
*support* of the Constitution, not in _defiance_ of it.


  /Bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell                   [e-mail]
  Fantasy Farm Fibers, Pearisburg, VA         [phone]


[This last one is also from Libernet Digest. I guess it should be categorized
in the "Things Could Always Be Worse" Department...]


>Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1993 00:51:55 -0700 (MST)
From: [e-mail] (Bwaldrop)
Subject: Today in Russia and Eastern Europe. . .
To: [e-mail]

Ukraine and Russia are getting rather hysterical at each other over
Ukraine's intransigence on the subject of handing over its nuclear weapons
to the Russians.  There are rumors (denied by Ukraine) that Ukraine is
developing a capability to assert operational control, including targeting
and launch, of the nuclear weapons on its territory, and/or attempting to
develop some kind of radiological weapon from the nuclear materials in the
warheads.

In lovely Yugoslavia, the November Yugoslavian inflation rate was. . .

                   20,190%!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is an hourly rate of .7%, a daily rate of 18.7% and at this rate will
be an annual inflation factor of 286 billion percent.  Economists say this
is approaching the level of inflation in post-World War I Germany.  A new
$500 million dinar note has just been issued, which exchanges for about
$6.00 US.

According to the Russian government, the minimum wage is 7,740
rubles/month; minimum cost of living is 40,000 rubles/month. . . but the
average wage is 100,000 rubles/month.  The Russian government has just
announced distribution of 1.5 trillion rubles to the military,
agriculture, coal industry, and "northern regions".  They adjusted their
projected state income upwards by 1.5 trillion to cover the expenditure,
but did not identify the source of the new revenue (can you say "printing
press", I knew you could).

Meanwhile, Ukraine, Moldova, the Baltic republics, and other "energy
importers" in the region are suffering regular brown-outs and long power
outages due to inability to pay for Russian electricity and natural gas
purchases (they'd rather sell those commodities to western Europe, which
pays with hard currency).  Governments in the region are complaining the
unattended border posts are being torn apart for (apparently) use as wood
fuel, and widespread clear cutting of forests is reported due to the
necessity for winter fuel.  (Authorities are "mystified", however, as to why
the "vandals" are also stealing the barbed wire from the border posts. . .)

And finally. . . the Russian Army is reinstituting ethnic formations of
Cossacks, organized under traditional tribal leaders, with a distinctive
parade uniform (that's what the article said).  They will be posted to
"troubled border regions".

Egads. . . "Alongside Night" comes to life before our very eyes.



**

>From [e-mail]  Thu Nov 25 00:28:59 1993
From: Jim Hart <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tax Havens on the Net
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1993 00:09:49 -40962758 (CST)


---------------------
Tax Havens on the Net
---------------------
compiled by James R. Hart

sources:
Internet Connectivity List -- Larry Landweber, U.Wisc.
        ftp.cs.wisc.edu ../connectivity_table   Version 9,
        August 1993
Hoyt L. Barber, _Tax Havens_, McGraw-Hill 1993

Codes used to  indicate sites in each country with access to
the Global Multiprotocol Open Internet:

BITNET
b: minimal, one to five domestic BITNET sites
B: widespread, more than five domestic BITNET sites

IP INTERNET
I: = operational, accesible from entire IP Internet
i: = operational, not accesible via the NSFNET backbone

UUCP
u: minimal, one to five domestic UUCP sites
U: widespread, more than five domestic UUCP sites

FIDONET
f: minimal, one to five domestic FIDONET sites
F: widespread, more than five domestic FIDONET sites

OSI
o: minimal, one to five domestic X.400 sites
O: widespread, more than five domestic X.400 sites

------------------------
and without further ado:
------------------------

Aruba
net access: ---f-
languages: Papiamento, English, Dutch, Spanish
currency controls: none?
bank secrecy: moderate (numbered accounts not
        permitted)
preferred legal entities: Aruba Exempt Company,
        NV (Dutch legal tradition, bearer shares allowed)
taxes: no income tax on AEC or shareholders, no
        witholding of any kind
tax treaties: none?

Austria
net access: BIOUFO
language: German
currency controls: ??
bank secrecy: good; numbered accounts available
preferred legal entities: limited liability company, stock
        orporation
taxes: corporate tax.  no bank interest tax.  20% divident
        ax.
tax treaties: many, OECD model, primarily personal and
        orporate income
contact: Price Waterhouse, Austria

Barbados
net access: --u--
language: English
currency controls: some (none for offshore banks &
        nsurance)
preferred legal entities: company, public company,
        offshore bank, exempt  insurance
        company, foreign sales corporation ,
        international business company
taxes: income tax offshore banks and international
        business companies 2.5%, exempt insurance
        companies and foreign sales corporations none
tax treaties: double-tax treaties with 5 major countries (incl.
        U.K. & U.S.)

Bermuda
net access: --uf--
language:  English
currency controls: none for nonresidents
bank secrecy:  moderate
preferred legal entities:
                local (conduct business in Bermuda, must be 60%
                Bermuda owned),
        exempt (only conducts business outside
                Bermuda)
                -- min. capitalization US$12,000
                -- extensive background check on the
                    principles
taxes: no income, profit, sales, value added, witholding, or
        capital gains taxes
tax treaties:  no double-tax treaties.  U.S. can be provided
         with tax information concerning civil & criminal
        tax cases

Costa Rica
net access: bIuf-
language: Spanish
currency controls: only on local currency, applies only to
        citizens or legal entities
bank secrecy: good
legal entities:
        individual enterprise/limited liability
        collective company
        limited partnership
        limited-liability company
        stock corporation (aka chartered company): most
        common
taxes: 15% on dividents for some nonresident
shareholders, moderate corporate
        income, payroll, imort, real estate taxes.
Exporters exempt from most
        taxes.
tax treaties: no double-tax treaties.  Caribbean Basin
Initiative exchange-of-information
        agreeement signed but not yet ratified (as of 1/93).

Hong Kong
net access: BI-F-
languages: Cantonese, English
currency controls: none
bank secrecy: moderate?
preferred legal entity: limited-liability corporation
        (English common law Companies Ordinance)
taxes: 16.5% domestic source corporate  income, 15%
        domestic employment wages, 15%  on domestic
        property rental income
tax treaties: no double-tax agreements
n.b.: treaty to return Hong Kong to Communist China in
        1997

Ireland
net access: BIUFO
language: English
currency controls: none?
bank secrecy: moderate?
preferred legal entity: noresident company (private
corporation w/limited liability,
        must conduct operations outside Ireland)
taxes: only on Irish operations
tax treaties: many double-tax treaties
n.b.: those with Irish grandparents can obtain second
        citizenship

Leichtenstein
net access: ---f-
languages: German, Alemanni
currency controls: none
bank secrecy: excellent
preferred legal entities: allows any type found anywhere
in the world (!)
        establishment (limited liability, unlimited duration)
        company limited by shares
        foundations and trusts
taxes:  none for income outside Leichtenstein.  Net worth
        tax of 0.01% on capital and reserves (min. 1,000
        Swiss francs), local  resident taxes
tax treaties: not party directly or indirectly to any
        exchange-of-information agreements
        double-tax treaty exists only with Austria
n.b.: bankers won't assist law enforcement officials with
        drug, fraud, theft, or tax investigations.  They
        might assist in money laundering and insider
        trading investigations, informing the customer
        first.

Luxembourg
net access: bIUFO
languages: Letzeburgesh, French, German, English
bank secrecy: moderate
preferred legal entity: holding company
taxes: holding companies pays only 10% registration fee
on issued shares and
        0.20% annual capital tax on issued capital bonds.
tax treaties: many double-tax treaties
n.b.: EC member

Malta
net access: --u--
languages: Maltese, English
currency controls: none
bank secrecy: good
preferred legal entities: offshore notrading, trading,
banking (overseas, subsidiary, local), insurance, trusts
taxes: nontrading exempt, trading very low
tax treties: many double-tax treaties
n.b.: EC member

Netherlands
net access: BIUFO
language: Dutch
currency controls: ??
bank secrecy: poor
preferred legal entities: private or public NV (can have
        bearer shares)
taxes: complex, high (many loopholes for large offshore
        companies)
tax treaties: many

Panama
net access: b-uFO
languages: Spanish, English
curency controls:  none
bank secrecy: good; numbered accounts permissable
preferred legal entity:  corporation
taxes: none on income generated outside Panama
tax treaties: only on shipping income

Singapore
net access: bIuF-
languages: Malay, Mandarin, Tamil, English
currency controls: none
bank secrecy: moderate; numbered accounts available
preferred legal entities: private limited company
taxes: none  on dividends, foreign deposit interest, or
income derived from
        outside Singapore.
tax treaties: many

Switzerland
net access: BIUFO
languages: French, German, Italian, Romansch
currency controls: none
bank secrecy: moderate to good; numbered accounts
        available
preferred legal entity: AG (stock company under Laws of
        Obligation)
taxes: 3.6-9.8% worldwide income tax for operating
companies, 35%
        witholding tax on interest and dividends
tax treaties: many double-tax treaties

Vanuata
net access: --u--
languages: Melanesian, French, English
currency controls: none
bank secrecy: moderate?
preferred legal entities: holding, trading, agency, mgmt.
service, contracting
taxes: no income or capital gains taxes
tax treaties: none

Western Samoa
net access: --u--
languages: Samoan, English
currency controls: none
bank secrecy: good
preferred legal entities: international company, offshore
        bank, insurance company
taxes: none for companies under offshore acts
tax treaties: none

If you like having this information, let me know.  Also let
me know  what other kinds of information you need on tax
havens and net access; I'd love to be of service.  If you
have corrections to or additional information for the Tax
Havens on the Net list, I'd be  happy to add it with full
attribution (or full privacy, as you prefer).   To preserve
your privacy, feel free to use anonymous remailers and
encryption.  My PGP key enclosed below.

James R. Hart                   [e-mail]

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.2

mQCNAiz0Br4AAAEEAJohFjXdkx6i2Mq6nJXdJN+VGupeKwuu1SAiRvsBK7TQ1ajY
d3wEFohbwaHGn3iq7A1//koipvzE5S/C6pPxIAHFeoYOUzeI/cWmh6vsuaF3/lVm
K9lx/L7PyaF8rvd4FOmLqkvs1xk/24S9ZQaBb3cjhLV571NaiPCIc3SPJUKXAAUT
tCJKYW1lcyBSLiBIYXJ0IDxoYXJ0QGNoYW9zLmJzdS5lZHU+
=z2UE
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----


**

[ Notice of Ownership: The following expression of ideas entitled "Random
Thoughts on a New Age Order, or, The Relevance of Individual Sovereignty", is
the absolute and allodial property of the author. Permission is hereby granted
to any and all individuals by the author to reproduce this expression in any
form, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT IT MAY ONLY BE DISTRIBUTED ENTIRELY IN
UNALTERED FORM, INCLUDING THIS NOTICE OF OWNERSHIP. In all honesty, the author
makes no claim of being able to enforce this condition, so go ahead and chop it
up all you want. But if you do, you're a fuckin' asshole. :) ]


Random Thoughts on a New Age Order, or,
The Relevance of Individual Sovereignty
December 1993

"If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and
blaming it on you..."
 - Rudyard Kipling

"This is also nothing new."
  - Negativland, _U2_


The latest issue of _Heterodoxy_ muses on how wonderful it must be to be a
professional philosopher (they used the term "intellectual"), since it
allows you to disavow any responsibility for the consequences of your
actions, as well as of the ideas you advocate.

A distinction, however, must be made between two types of responsibility.
We all have both a legal and moral responsibility to refrain from the
unprovoked use of force against others; if we fail to do so, those others
have every natural right to defend themselves against our aggression. Now
the mere advocacy of ideas, no matter how silly or dangerous anyone may
deem them to be, clearly does not qualify as force, and thus there is no
LEGAL responsibility for their expression. (Hence, the First Amendment.)

So regardless of how repulsive ANY number of people may find a book, a song
or a pamphlet, they have no right to use force against those responsible
for its creation. The concept of responsibility in this case is a MORAL
one, WHICH BY ITSELF, CANNOT CONDONE THE USE OF FORCE. But I certainly
contend that this dual legal and moral responsibility of not aggressing
against others must also include the solely moral one of not ADVOCATING
unprovoked force aginst others. And I definitely view people who do
advocate such ideas with extreme distrust and suspicion, and make every
effort to interact with them as little as possible.

Most folks don't even realize that two types of responsibility exist, let
alone bother to distinguish between them.

But to return to the subject of professional philosophers: I've noticed
that quite a few of even those philosophers who would be sympathetic to the
CONCEPT of sovereignty (i.e., [O|o]bjectivists) usually have never heard of
even the most rudimentary elements of it. Worse, once it is explained to
them, many cannot grasp the idea that it is actually attainable in this day
and age.

Now I consider [O|o]bjectivists to be, on the whole, generally above
average in terms of intelligence. And, thanks to David Kelley and the
Institute for Objectivist Studies (which broke the "monopoly" on
Objectivism claimed by Leonard Peikoff), many of them are even rather
tolerant of behavior that they would never even consider engaging in
themselves. (See David Kelley's _Truth and Tolerance_.) Given that most of
them should easily be able to visualize a society in which rights were
respected rather than trampled on or ignored, as well as the general level
of intelligence and quick-thinking among them, I find it rather chilling
that so few of them can conceive of the idea of actually claiming and
defending the concept of their sovereignty in court, and even more chilling
that so many are unable to conceive of how to go about their daily affairs,
living their lives, once they have dissolved all contracts with any
governmental agencies and defended that position.

The most unfortunate aspect of all this is that [O|o]bjectivists are, in
general, people who would substantially benefit from being unencumbered by
such contracts; people who are resourceful and far-sighted enough to fully
enjoy and exploit the status of freeman, and intelligent enough (and, to a
lesser degree, polite and reasonable enough... ;) to concisely explain such
status to a layman in an easily comprehensible form. (I note, with more
than mild interest, that considerably more Extropians are aware of the
concept, and highly more optimistic regarding it, even if they do not claim
such a status at this point in their lives.)

So what does the "Freedom Movement" consist of, for the most part? This may
sound nasty, but so far, I've found it to be true more often than not: A
bunch of racist, sexist, moronic middle-aged hicks who talk a good game,
but when it comes right down to where the bear shits, don't see anything
inconsistent about slapping the old lady around, beating up niggers on the
weekends and wasting a lot of valuable time and energy being RELIGIOUS, for
crying out loud! And I'm sure I don't need to remind you all that being
religious in and of itself isn't legally OR morally wrong... but
nonetheless, I consider it completely opposed to the concept of sovereignty
(John Locke and most of the other natural law folk may not have, but that's
because they never read James Donald's essay on it, which as always I will
mail out on request). Every individual is sovereign because of their nature
as a human being, because of the fact that human beings survive and
flourish by use of their reasoning ability -- NOT because of any imagined
(or even possibly real, but so far there's not a shred of proof) "creator".

Where are the goddamned women? Where are the goddamned blacks, the
Chicanos? Where are the goddamned queers and the dykes? And for that
matter, where the hell are the goddamned Objectivists and Extropians?
ANYONE in America today who wants to be free to go as far as they can, to
better their condition as much as possible, and to be free from random
violence and attacks by ANYONE, government or otherwise, should be HIGHLY
interested in claiming the status of a sovereign.

But it doesn't seem to matter whether a person believes that unprovoked
force is just and proper or not -- BOTH sides are equally prone towards
fatalism, cynicism and a general attitude of, "The hell with it. Nothing I
do can possibly matter. I'll just live my life, try to stay out of their
way, roll with the punches and say Yes, Massa, and maybe, if I'm lucky, I
can stay alive."

But we should not be interested in MERE SURVIVAL -- we need to pursue
FLOURISHING. Being HAPPY. Being FREE.

Anyone who spends any amount of time kvetching about their slavery, whether
such a condition is self-imposed or not, or even whether such a condition
is real or imagined, needs to hit the brakes and start dealing with
reality. As long as someone knows WHY individuals are sovereign, and is
willing to defend that concept to the last, they should be making every
effort to BE sovereign. Failing that, they should be making every effort to
SPREAD THE IDEA, SHARE THE INFORMATION AND KEEP THE MEME ALIVE. You only
lose all right to complain when you give up. Principia Discordia said it
best: "Ye have locked yerselves up in cages of fear -- and behold, do ye
now complain that ye lack freedom."

Force is the last line of defense -- the last resort when all others have
failed. As long as there is sufficient order that the court system remains
functional, defending one's sovereignty is possible. Only under the most
extraordinary of circumstances such as war, massive civil unrest -- and
yes, attack by government, as in the Randy Weaver and Branch Davidian
incidents -- should we resort to violence. The rule of (natural) law -- NOT
the law of the jungle -- is in every peaceful person's best interest.

[end of expression of ideas]

**

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.3a

mQCNAiuhO1QAAAEEAOuUGP0QKhow6Fao1yAZklOAoU+6sXt8978TaJYQQ+NTHMx7
zlnmG6d6LWarPgwIwyCyygEMU+2zAClde08YHOSI/zH+2rvLSaddgPcGJlf7V7+K
uhu3nBJM6dhEBKY2P3UfO+CmQQemQ3Q8yR4m8HEpno1VRzUIh2QAFfmIg8VVAAUR
tCpJYW4gTSBTY2hpcmFkbyA8c2NoaXJhZG9AbGFiLmNjLndtaWNoLmVkdT4=
=OEDe
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----