Dr. V's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.com/user/998353/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/408081/comments?source=feed#comment-14250941 14250941
Germany enjoys waving their finger of "moral superiority" at the rest of the EU as well as the US, when they should e sweeping their own doorstep.

As most Financial Daily's refer to Deutsche bank as "the most stable bank in the EU", we say, if that's the best they've got, they're screwed.]]> Mon, 28 Jan 2013 09:06:05 -0500
Germany enjoys waving their finger of "moral superiority" at the rest of the EU as well as the US, when they should e sweeping their own doorstep.

As most Financial Daily's refer to Deutsche bank as "the most stable bank in the EU", we say, if that's the best they've got, they're screwed.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1089961/comments?source=feed#comment-13961911 13961911 Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:03:28 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1089961/comments?source=feed#comment-13577431 13577431
The US has been running under the UCC for years. Our so called "constitutional rights" were suspended under Executive Order long ago, common knowledge, ask any Judge or CONLAW Professor.

One difference between Common Law and the Uniform Commercial Code is that in Common Law, contracts must be entered into (1) knowingly, (2) voluntarily, and (3) intentionally.

Under the U.C.C., this is not so. First of all, contracts are unnecessary. Under this new law, "agreements" can be binding, and if you only exercise the benefits of an "agreements," it is presumed or implied that you intend to meet the obligations associated with those benefits. If you accept a benefit offered by government, then you are obligated to follow, to the letter, each and every statute involved with that benefit.

It is important to remember when we go into a court that we are in a commercial international jurisdiction. If we go into court and say, " I DEMAND MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ," the judge will most likely say, "You mention the Constitution again, and I'll find you in contempt of court !" Then we don't understand how he can do that. Hasn't he sworn to uphold the Constitution? The rule here is: you cannot be charged under one jurisdiction, and defend under another. For example, if the French government came to you and asked where you filed your French income tax in a certain year, do you go to the French government and say, "I demand my Constitutional Right?" No. The proper answer is: THE LAW DOESN'T APPLY TO ME - I'M NOT A FRENCHMAN. You must make your reservation of rights under the jurisdiction in which you are charged - not under some other jurisdiction. So in a UCC court, you must claim your reservation of rights under (pursuant to) the [their] U.C.C. 1-308 (old 1-207).

UCC 1-308 (old 1-207) goes on to say:

"When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation thereof, causes a loss of the right, and bars its assertion at a later date." (UCC 1-308 (old 1-207).9) ]]> Fri, 11 Jan 2013 03:55:42 -0500
The US has been running under the UCC for years. Our so called "constitutional rights" were suspended under Executive Order long ago, common knowledge, ask any Judge or CONLAW Professor.

One difference between Common Law and the Uniform Commercial Code is that in Common Law, contracts must be entered into (1) knowingly, (2) voluntarily, and (3) intentionally.

Under the U.C.C., this is not so. First of all, contracts are unnecessary. Under this new law, "agreements" can be binding, and if you only exercise the benefits of an "agreements," it is presumed or implied that you intend to meet the obligations associated with those benefits. If you accept a benefit offered by government, then you are obligated to follow, to the letter, each and every statute involved with that benefit.

It is important to remember when we go into a court that we are in a commercial international jurisdiction. If we go into court and say, " I DEMAND MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ," the judge will most likely say, "You mention the Constitution again, and I'll find you in contempt of court !" Then we don't understand how he can do that. Hasn't he sworn to uphold the Constitution? The rule here is: you cannot be charged under one jurisdiction, and defend under another. For example, if the French government came to you and asked where you filed your French income tax in a certain year, do you go to the French government and say, "I demand my Constitutional Right?" No. The proper answer is: THE LAW DOESN'T APPLY TO ME - I'M NOT A FRENCHMAN. You must make your reservation of rights under the jurisdiction in which you are charged - not under some other jurisdiction. So in a UCC court, you must claim your reservation of rights under (pursuant to) the [their] U.C.C. 1-308 (old 1-207).

UCC 1-308 (old 1-207) goes on to say:

"When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation thereof, causes a loss of the right, and bars its assertion at a later date." (UCC 1-308 (old 1-207).9) ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1089961/comments?source=feed#comment-13525221 13525221
Democracy:

A government of the masses.

Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.

Results in mobocracy.

Attitude toward property is comunistic-negating property rights.

Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate. whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.

Results in demagogism license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

Democracy is the "direct" rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success.

A certain Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, nearly two centuries ago, had this to say about Democracy: " A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship."

A democracy is majority rule and is destructive of liberty because there is no law to prevent the majority from trampling on individual rights. Whatever the majority says goes! A lynch mob is an example of pure democracy in action. There is only one dissenting vote, and that is cast by the person at the end of the rope.

Republic:

Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.

Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.

Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.

A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.

Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.

Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.

A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of:

an executive and

a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create

a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize

certain inherent individual rights.

Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.

Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They "made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic."

A republic is a government of law under a Constitution. The Constitution holds the government in check and prevents the majority (acting through their government) from violating the rights of the individual. Under this system of government a lynch mob is illegal. The suspected criminal cannot be denied his right to a fair trial even if a majority of the citizenry demands otherwise.

Government is no longer taught in schools, sadly.]]> Thu, 10 Jan 2013 04:12:52 -0500
Democracy:

A government of the masses.

Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.

Results in mobocracy.

Attitude toward property is comunistic-negating property rights.

Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate. whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.

Results in demagogism license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

Democracy is the "direct" rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success.

A certain Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, nearly two centuries ago, had this to say about Democracy: " A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship."

A democracy is majority rule and is destructive of liberty because there is no law to prevent the majority from trampling on individual rights. Whatever the majority says goes! A lynch mob is an example of pure democracy in action. There is only one dissenting vote, and that is cast by the person at the end of the rope.

Republic:

Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.

Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.

Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.

A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.

Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.

Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.

A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of:

an executive and

a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create

a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize

certain inherent individual rights.

Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.

Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They "made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic."

A republic is a government of law under a Constitution. The Constitution holds the government in check and prevents the majority (acting through their government) from violating the rights of the individual. Under this system of government a lynch mob is illegal. The suspected criminal cannot be denied his right to a fair trial even if a majority of the citizenry demands otherwise.

Government is no longer taught in schools, sadly.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1089961/comments?source=feed#comment-13353831 13353831 Sun, 06 Jan 2013 05:18:53 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1089961/comments?source=feed#comment-13353811 13353811
However, the US Constitution does not take precedence here, rather the UCC, which governs our daily lives. As a member of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, allow me to share this explanation, shared by many.

The US Constitution embraces two (2) systems of law.

First, public municipal law for private purposes operating "in personam" (in and for the individual person).

Second, private law for public purposes operating "in rem"(in and for property or anything that has nothing to do with the individual).

What is hard to initially understand is that the men who wrote this document (US Constitution) wrote it in such a way that it would allow for the very things that government is doing today that we detest so much, (the danger of letting someone with a 3rd grade education near a public document.) All of the despicable Regulations and interference of "big brother," with his detested heavy-handed tactics are all properly allowed by our Constitution. They are perfectly legal. This is because the United States Government is allowed to operate outside the Constitution BECAUSE it is operating in private Roman civil law. It is not treasonous for it to carry on the way it does, but it is treasonous that the citizenry are ignorant of their republican rights (as in being members of the Republic) that can keep the government in check by removing the Roman civil law.

Of the two systems of law that the Constitution embraces, the entire population have been herded, over the years, into operating only in the private unilateral contractual side. This is the side where we have volunteered unknowingly into giving up the part of the Constitution that was designed to keep the private law out of public policy if used, accessed and maintained by the people.

What is unfortunate is that the citizen continues to assume that voting is making their desires known and that the government basically has the interest of the individual in mind. All the time unaware that private corporate business interest is what the government is there for (at this point) because the house of the Republic of the [u]nited States of America (ignorantly vacated) remains empty.

What the citizen is unaware of is that the first ten Amendments to the Constitution, called the Bill of Rights, were passed as public in Law Amendments by the "states in this union" known as the Republic of the United States of America. These do not apply to the "several states" that are political subdivisions of "a territory" of the 14th Amendment trust of the District of Columbia called the "democracy." In the opposite vein, Amendments 11 through 25 were passed as private at law Amendments by the "several states" operating as political subdivisions of the trust and have no application to the Republic and its citizens. Amendments 11 through 25 function outside the Constitution. Any additional Amendments that would be added by a constitutional convention would be added as more private law only by the "several states" as a "democracy" outside the Republic and its Constitution. The more Amendments the democracy wants to add will not give more freedom and rights, on the contrary, only more oppression and control.

Democracy is one of the scariest words in Webster English.

As I said "amnesty weapon turn-ins" are on the USG calendar. Everyone here on the Hill knows this.]]> Sun, 06 Jan 2013 05:18:37 -0500
However, the US Constitution does not take precedence here, rather the UCC, which governs our daily lives. As a member of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, allow me to share this explanation, shared by many.

The US Constitution embraces two (2) systems of law.

First, public municipal law for private purposes operating "in personam" (in and for the individual person).

Second, private law for public purposes operating "in rem"(in and for property or anything that has nothing to do with the individual).

What is hard to initially understand is that the men who wrote this document (US Constitution) wrote it in such a way that it would allow for the very things that government is doing today that we detest so much, (the danger of letting someone with a 3rd grade education near a public document.) All of the despicable Regulations and interference of "big brother," with his detested heavy-handed tactics are all properly allowed by our Constitution. They are perfectly legal. This is because the United States Government is allowed to operate outside the Constitution BECAUSE it is operating in private Roman civil law. It is not treasonous for it to carry on the way it does, but it is treasonous that the citizenry are ignorant of their republican rights (as in being members of the Republic) that can keep the government in check by removing the Roman civil law.

Of the two systems of law that the Constitution embraces, the entire population have been herded, over the years, into operating only in the private unilateral contractual side. This is the side where we have volunteered unknowingly into giving up the part of the Constitution that was designed to keep the private law out of public policy if used, accessed and maintained by the people.

What is unfortunate is that the citizen continues to assume that voting is making their desires known and that the government basically has the interest of the individual in mind. All the time unaware that private corporate business interest is what the government is there for (at this point) because the house of the Republic of the [u]nited States of America (ignorantly vacated) remains empty.

What the citizen is unaware of is that the first ten Amendments to the Constitution, called the Bill of Rights, were passed as public in Law Amendments by the "states in this union" known as the Republic of the United States of America. These do not apply to the "several states" that are political subdivisions of "a territory" of the 14th Amendment trust of the District of Columbia called the "democracy." In the opposite vein, Amendments 11 through 25 were passed as private at law Amendments by the "several states" operating as political subdivisions of the trust and have no application to the Republic and its citizens. Amendments 11 through 25 function outside the Constitution. Any additional Amendments that would be added by a constitutional convention would be added as more private law only by the "several states" as a "democracy" outside the Republic and its Constitution. The more Amendments the democracy wants to add will not give more freedom and rights, on the contrary, only more oppression and control.

Democracy is one of the scariest words in Webster English.

As I said "amnesty weapon turn-ins" are on the USG calendar. Everyone here on the Hill knows this.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1089961/comments?source=feed#comment-13353781 13353781
No confusion here, please read and study the Constitution before attempting to debate it's content. ]]> Sun, 06 Jan 2013 05:16:41 -0500
No confusion here, please read and study the Constitution before attempting to debate it's content. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1089961/comments?source=feed#comment-13216801 13216801
CONLAW helmets on, follow me:

The question is, does the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, entitle the private citizenry the right to legally purchase or own firearms? Because if in fact that was thei author's intention, it doesn't say that anywhere in the Amendment, but rather........

"A well regulated Militia being "necessary to the security of a free State", the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Full stop..

- Keep (to maintain and store, as in a town's armory, overseen by local law authority)

- Bear (to carry an assigned weapon issued by that State for the specific purpose of protecting that same State, and ONLY in that instance, just like your assigned military weapon in US Military,
when called out, weapons are issued from the armory for a specific action, and returned to the armory at end of mission.)

http://bit.ly/UI8rP8]]> Wed, 02 Jan 2013 10:19:12 -0500
CONLAW helmets on, follow me:

The question is, does the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, entitle the private citizenry the right to legally purchase or own firearms? Because if in fact that was thei author's intention, it doesn't say that anywhere in the Amendment, but rather........

"A well regulated Militia being "necessary to the security of a free State", the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Full stop..

- Keep (to maintain and store, as in a town's armory, overseen by local law authority)

- Bear (to carry an assigned weapon issued by that State for the specific purpose of protecting that same State, and ONLY in that instance, just like your assigned military weapon in US Military,
when called out, weapons are issued from the armory for a specific action, and returned to the armory at end of mission.)

http://bit.ly/UI8rP8]]> http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/740341?source=feed#comment-13206701 13206701
In a detailed comparrison here on SA, I also pointed out their debt was nearly as high as their Mkt Cap, citing specifically that POSCO was knocking MT in the dirt worldwide, and would indeed surpass MT within the year.

Happy New Year Mr. Mittal!

Remember what I told you in London?]]> Wed, 02 Jan 2013 02:51:45 -0500
In a detailed comparrison here on SA, I also pointed out their debt was nearly as high as their Mkt Cap, citing specifically that POSCO was knocking MT in the dirt worldwide, and would indeed surpass MT within the year.

Happy New Year Mr. Mittal!

Remember what I told you in London?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1026691/comments?source=feed#comment-12026021 12026021
They have long been acting under mandate as Sole Agent for the US Treasury regards silver.]]> Wed, 28 Nov 2012 04:25:32 -0500
They have long been acting under mandate as Sole Agent for the US Treasury regards silver.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1026691/comments?source=feed#comment-11984361 11984361
Dimon runs FED Reserve Bank NY, as well as JPMC, and as we predicted in 2010, (check posts), is now to be tapped for US Treasury Secretary. no secret there as he is a vocal part of the Democratic machinery, and friend of the White House's current tenant.

This will continue, so let it go. Can't change it, so learn to live with it.

The system always has, and always will, protect it's own.]]> Tue, 27 Nov 2012 03:54:45 -0500
Dimon runs FED Reserve Bank NY, as well as JPMC, and as we predicted in 2010, (check posts), is now to be tapped for US Treasury Secretary. no secret there as he is a vocal part of the Democratic machinery, and friend of the White House's current tenant.

This will continue, so let it go. Can't change it, so learn to live with it.

The system always has, and always will, protect it's own.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1026521/comments?source=feed#comment-11952051 11952051 Mon, 26 Nov 2012 07:11:45 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1026691/comments?source=feed#comment-11951291 11951291
(check GAO FED Audit pgs. 130-31)

The announcement of charges filed by both the CFTC and the FBI in the pending investigations of Silver market manipulation by JP Morgan Chase, should not get you wound up.

Bart Chilton (aka Black Bart), said at the end of July 2012, "CFTC WILL NOT investigate allegations that the silver price is manipulated by major financial powerhouses, in particular JPMorgan, whose death-by-a-thousand-cuts year might see their "Too Big To Fail" status tested and endure."

REMEMBER:
1) Acknowledgment by the Bullion Banks and US Government that they have been involved in the price suppression of Silver for over 50 years in order to support and extend the global confidence in un-backed fiat US Dollar, has changed little, and if anything, it gives FBI even more of a reason to kill the investigation.

2) Maguire and his wife were run over, and the driver was released on a misdemeanor.

3) Let it go.]]> Mon, 26 Nov 2012 05:01:50 -0500
(check GAO FED Audit pgs. 130-31)

The announcement of charges filed by both the CFTC and the FBI in the pending investigations of Silver market manipulation by JP Morgan Chase, should not get you wound up.

Bart Chilton (aka Black Bart), said at the end of July 2012, "CFTC WILL NOT investigate allegations that the silver price is manipulated by major financial powerhouses, in particular JPMorgan, whose death-by-a-thousand-cuts year might see their "Too Big To Fail" status tested and endure."

REMEMBER:
1) Acknowledgment by the Bullion Banks and US Government that they have been involved in the price suppression of Silver for over 50 years in order to support and extend the global confidence in un-backed fiat US Dollar, has changed little, and if anything, it gives FBI even more of a reason to kill the investigation.

2) Maguire and his wife were run over, and the driver was released on a misdemeanor.

3) Let it go.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/676911?source=feed#comment-11893581 11893581
I do apologize as well, I should have mentioned the legal explanation I gave is in fact based upon current UK Corporate Law & Governance. According to GAAP , the overstatement of revenue under any tax code is illegal, full stop, Ignorantia juris non excusat,("ignorance of the law does not excuse").

The questions you pose are indeed the million dollar questions, as the media is now avoiding, in an attempt to put the story on the back burner whilst FBI / SEC / FSA continue to investigate.

Apparently, there was enough evidence uncovered in the internal investigation, that the U.S. District Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, called in the FBI, so this is indeed criminal in nature.

The most damning statements include:

1) "Most of the board was here and voted for this deal, and we feel terribly about that," Whitman said. "What I will say is that the board relied on audited financials. Audited by Deloitte - not 'Brand X' accounting firm, but Deloitte. During our very extensive due diligence process, we hired KPMG to audit Deloitte. And neither of them saw what we now see after someone came forward to point us in the right direction."

a. Witman blames not only Deloitte here, but further implies they (HP) called in KPMG to peep on Deloitte? So two (2) of the "Big Four" Auditors missed it? That's pure schmegegge.

As I stated in the previous post:

"An accountant may be prosecuted for fraud" who:

· Certifies that a financial statement fairly presents the financial condition of the audited company when the accountant knows it does not;

· Falsely states that the audit was conducted in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

· Deliberately distorts the audit results.

That is quite clear, little room for finagling.

2) Apotheker told The Associated Press on Tuesday that he was "stunned and disappointed" to learn of the allegations against Autonomy, and pointed out that they had gone undiscovered by HP's auditors, executives and directors.

a. Leo Apotheker, just throws it right into Meg's lap here, suggesting that HP (BoD, C-Officers, Accountants) are at fault having missed it during due diligence,

3) HP, in the understatement of the year, says it is “extremely disappointed” to find out some former members of Autonomy’s management team inflated Autonomy’s underlying financial metrics – GAAP and non-GAAP. HP boldly called it a “willful effort to mislead investors and potential buyers”. Read: CRIMINAL FRAUD.

She (Whitman) MUST step down now to keep that company from being broken into pieces, albeit, likely the plan all along. Watch those shorts, and check the order book]]> Fri, 23 Nov 2012 03:08:21 -0500
I do apologize as well, I should have mentioned the legal explanation I gave is in fact based upon current UK Corporate Law & Governance. According to GAAP , the overstatement of revenue under any tax code is illegal, full stop, Ignorantia juris non excusat,("ignorance of the law does not excuse").

The questions you pose are indeed the million dollar questions, as the media is now avoiding, in an attempt to put the story on the back burner whilst FBI / SEC / FSA continue to investigate.

Apparently, there was enough evidence uncovered in the internal investigation, that the U.S. District Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, called in the FBI, so this is indeed criminal in nature.

The most damning statements include:

1) "Most of the board was here and voted for this deal, and we feel terribly about that," Whitman said. "What I will say is that the board relied on audited financials. Audited by Deloitte - not 'Brand X' accounting firm, but Deloitte. During our very extensive due diligence process, we hired KPMG to audit Deloitte. And neither of them saw what we now see after someone came forward to point us in the right direction."

a. Witman blames not only Deloitte here, but further implies they (HP) called in KPMG to peep on Deloitte? So two (2) of the "Big Four" Auditors missed it? That's pure schmegegge.

As I stated in the previous post:

"An accountant may be prosecuted for fraud" who:

· Certifies that a financial statement fairly presents the financial condition of the audited company when the accountant knows it does not;

· Falsely states that the audit was conducted in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

· Deliberately distorts the audit results.

That is quite clear, little room for finagling.

2) Apotheker told The Associated Press on Tuesday that he was "stunned and disappointed" to learn of the allegations against Autonomy, and pointed out that they had gone undiscovered by HP's auditors, executives and directors.

a. Leo Apotheker, just throws it right into Meg's lap here, suggesting that HP (BoD, C-Officers, Accountants) are at fault having missed it during due diligence,

3) HP, in the understatement of the year, says it is “extremely disappointed” to find out some former members of Autonomy’s management team inflated Autonomy’s underlying financial metrics – GAAP and non-GAAP. HP boldly called it a “willful effort to mislead investors and potential buyers”. Read: CRIMINAL FRAUD.

She (Whitman) MUST step down now to keep that company from being broken into pieces, albeit, likely the plan all along. Watch those shorts, and check the order book]]> http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/676911?source=feed#comment-11874311 11874311
As far as Corporate Regulation is concerned, at the point where through misrepresentation of material facts occurred. The specific elements of actual proof of misrepresentation, vary whether the case is prosecuted as a criminal or civil action. those elements normally include:

· Material false statement;

· Knowledge of its falsity;

· Reliance on the false statement by the victim;

· (A loss) Damages suffered;

· A deceit or fraud constituting a false statement made willfully or recklessly, which causes loss to another.

Not only is a misrepresentation fraudulent if it was known or believed by the maker of the representation to be false when made, but mere non-belief in the truth is also indicative of fraud.

Thus, whenever a person makes a false statement of record, which he does not actually and honestly believe to be true, for purposes of civil liability, that statement is as fraudulent as if he had stated that which he did not know to be true, or knew or believed to be false. The motive of the person making the representation is irrelevant.

In civil cases, when determining whether a representation was made fraudulently, the standard of proof applicable is the balance of probability (i.e. more likely than not) and not the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. However, the amount of evidence required to establish proof may vary according to the gravity of allegation to be proved.

In all fraud cases, the prosecution or claimant must prove that a false statement was intentional and part of a deliberate scheme to defraud. Under the law, there is no such thing as an accidental or negligent fraud. In most instances, only false representations of "presently existing facts" may be prosecuted.

False Opinions

The rule precluding fraud actions based on false "opinions" is subject to certain exceptions, principally cases involving opinions provided by professional advisers, such as Certified Public Accountants, (who in this case HP claim to be responsible for the fraud, although they (CPA's) deny any knowledge thereof.

This is where it starts to look grim for the firms who last performed due diligence regards Autonomy.

An accountant may be prosecuted for fraud who:

· Certifies that a financial statement fairly presents the financial condition of the audited company when the accountant knows it does not;

· Falsely states that the audit was conducted in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

· Deliberately distorts the audit results.

FALSE STATEMENTS UNDER OATH: PERJURY - S.2

(As amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1948)

If any person lawfully sworn as a witness or as an interpreter in a judicial proceeding willfully makes a statement material in that proceeding, which he knows to be false of does not believe to be true, he shall be guilty of perjury, and shall, on conviction thereof on indictment, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years, or to a fine or to both such imprisonment and fine.

FALSE STATEMENTS ON OATH MADE OTHERWISE THAN IN A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING - S.2

(As amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1948)

If any person -

(1) being required or authorized by law to make any statement or oath for any purpose, and being lawfully sworn (otherwise than in a judicial proceeding) willfully makes a statement which is material for that purpose and which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true; or

(2) willfully uses any false affidavit for the purposes of the Bills of Sale Act, 1878, as amended by any subsequent enactment, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof on indictment, shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years, or to a fine or to both such imprisonment and fine.]]> Thu, 22 Nov 2012 03:00:20 -0500
As far as Corporate Regulation is concerned, at the point where through misrepresentation of material facts occurred. The specific elements of actual proof of misrepresentation, vary whether the case is prosecuted as a criminal or civil action. those elements normally include:

· Material false statement;

· Knowledge of its falsity;

· Reliance on the false statement by the victim;

· (A loss) Damages suffered;

· A deceit or fraud constituting a false statement made willfully or recklessly, which causes loss to another.

Not only is a misrepresentation fraudulent if it was known or believed by the maker of the representation to be false when made, but mere non-belief in the truth is also indicative of fraud.

Thus, whenever a person makes a false statement of record, which he does not actually and honestly believe to be true, for purposes of civil liability, that statement is as fraudulent as if he had stated that which he did not know to be true, or knew or believed to be false. The motive of the person making the representation is irrelevant.

In civil cases, when determining whether a representation was made fraudulently, the standard of proof applicable is the balance of probability (i.e. more likely than not) and not the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. However, the amount of evidence required to establish proof may vary according to the gravity of allegation to be proved.

In all fraud cases, the prosecution or claimant must prove that a false statement was intentional and part of a deliberate scheme to defraud. Under the law, there is no such thing as an accidental or negligent fraud. In most instances, only false representations of "presently existing facts" may be prosecuted.

False Opinions

The rule precluding fraud actions based on false "opinions" is subject to certain exceptions, principally cases involving opinions provided by professional advisers, such as Certified Public Accountants, (who in this case HP claim to be responsible for the fraud, although they (CPA's) deny any knowledge thereof.

This is where it starts to look grim for the firms who last performed due diligence regards Autonomy.

An accountant may be prosecuted for fraud who:

· Certifies that a financial statement fairly presents the financial condition of the audited company when the accountant knows it does not;

· Falsely states that the audit was conducted in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

· Deliberately distorts the audit results.

FALSE STATEMENTS UNDER OATH: PERJURY - S.2

(As amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1948)

If any person lawfully sworn as a witness or as an interpreter in a judicial proceeding willfully makes a statement material in that proceeding, which he knows to be false of does not believe to be true, he shall be guilty of perjury, and shall, on conviction thereof on indictment, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years, or to a fine or to both such imprisonment and fine.

FALSE STATEMENTS ON OATH MADE OTHERWISE THAN IN A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING - S.2

(As amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1948)

If any person -

(1) being required or authorized by law to make any statement or oath for any purpose, and being lawfully sworn (otherwise than in a judicial proceeding) willfully makes a statement which is material for that purpose and which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true; or

(2) willfully uses any false affidavit for the purposes of the Bills of Sale Act, 1878, as amended by any subsequent enactment, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof on indictment, shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years, or to a fine or to both such imprisonment and fine.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/678661?source=feed#comment-11874301 11874301
The $354 BIL USD they borrowed from FED, (GAO FED Audit pgs. 130-31) is due, and they cannot pay. Despite asking for refinancing, FED says, "pay me", as FED is already the de facto owner of DB, as Germany laid out not only the keys to the bank, but sovereign collateral as well, to get that loan from FED.

US taxpayers again carrying the load for Germany.

If that isn't enough to raise a red flag, Deutsche Bank keeps claiming to have 2.2 TRIL in assets, yet only carries a microscopic $54 BIL in equity. And still, not even a hint of mention from Moody's as to Germany's financial credibility.

One need not be a financial savant to smell what DB has been cooking. With DB as DAX 30's house bank,(all major German Industrials bank with DB) when, (that's right, when), they go face down, they take the top German Industrials with them, (SIEMENS, TELEKOM, LINDE, THYSSEN KRUP, DAIMLER MERCEDES, VW, BMW, HEIDELBERG CEMENT, BASF, RWE, K&S AG, Deutsche Bahn, Deutsche Post etc.), and the invisible infrastructure they have so cleverly lied about to the entire world, becomes transparent.

The only way out: CHINA, as Germany hands China the keys to the backdoor, and we have a Chinese footprint right in the middle of the EU, and China goes on a shopping spree, picking up the now failed German stocks for pennies on the Euro.

So, if in fact Germany is the strongest EU economy, and their best bank (DB) is doing so badly, start shorting all things German.

No secret, this was seen 1000 miles away.]]> Thu, 22 Nov 2012 03:00:01 -0500
The $354 BIL USD they borrowed from FED, (GAO FED Audit pgs. 130-31) is due, and they cannot pay. Despite asking for refinancing, FED says, "pay me", as FED is already the de facto owner of DB, as Germany laid out not only the keys to the bank, but sovereign collateral as well, to get that loan from FED.

US taxpayers again carrying the load for Germany.

If that isn't enough to raise a red flag, Deutsche Bank keeps claiming to have 2.2 TRIL in assets, yet only carries a microscopic $54 BIL in equity. And still, not even a hint of mention from Moody's as to Germany's financial credibility.

One need not be a financial savant to smell what DB has been cooking. With DB as DAX 30's house bank,(all major German Industrials bank with DB) when, (that's right, when), they go face down, they take the top German Industrials with them, (SIEMENS, TELEKOM, LINDE, THYSSEN KRUP, DAIMLER MERCEDES, VW, BMW, HEIDELBERG CEMENT, BASF, RWE, K&S AG, Deutsche Bahn, Deutsche Post etc.), and the invisible infrastructure they have so cleverly lied about to the entire world, becomes transparent.

The only way out: CHINA, as Germany hands China the keys to the backdoor, and we have a Chinese footprint right in the middle of the EU, and China goes on a shopping spree, picking up the now failed German stocks for pennies on the Euro.

So, if in fact Germany is the strongest EU economy, and their best bank (DB) is doing so badly, start shorting all things German.

No secret, this was seen 1000 miles away.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/676911?source=feed#comment-11838831 11838831
So, according to her statements on National Television, she (Whitman), personally had knowledge of the irregularities (alleged fraud), which not only makes her as CEO complicit in fraud, but further exposes the endemic ineptitude demonstrated on her behalf since the diversity issue which led to her even being allowed to warm the chair.

Look for Whitman to step down as CEO, as an act of contrition from HP, now desperate to keep public trust and confidence, and to keep themselves from flat-lining.

Both feet in mouth, Ms. Whitman. When accusations arise, go to ground, not TV.

Deloitte....well, same thing you did at SIEMENS, eh? Book the hours, look busy, and claim you found no irregularities, right?]]> Wed, 21 Nov 2012 06:29:11 -0500
So, according to her statements on National Television, she (Whitman), personally had knowledge of the irregularities (alleged fraud), which not only makes her as CEO complicit in fraud, but further exposes the endemic ineptitude demonstrated on her behalf since the diversity issue which led to her even being allowed to warm the chair.

Look for Whitman to step down as CEO, as an act of contrition from HP, now desperate to keep public trust and confidence, and to keep themselves from flat-lining.

Both feet in mouth, Ms. Whitman. When accusations arise, go to ground, not TV.

Deloitte....well, same thing you did at SIEMENS, eh? Book the hours, look busy, and claim you found no irregularities, right?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1006781/comments?source=feed#comment-11795881 11795881 I hardly need any advice, as at my stage of the game, I am quite capable of managing my legal affairs myself. Having served five (5) Administrations in this town, I am quite aware of how my government works, thank you.

It is painfully obvious that you cannot understand what I posted, as it was indeed not an endorsement for those refusing to pay income tax, quite to the contrary, It was to prove a point, which seems to have flown right past you, out the window, above and beyond your legal horizons.

Law is no longer taught in US Law Schools, policy is taught, as in the UCC, full stop. If you did not learn that in Law School, or (when / if) you have sworn your oath before the Bar, then we know all we need to, thank you for your post.

Good luck, and good business to you.]]> Tue, 20 Nov 2012 05:02:27 -0500 I hardly need any advice, as at my stage of the game, I am quite capable of managing my legal affairs myself. Having served five (5) Administrations in this town, I am quite aware of how my government works, thank you.

It is painfully obvious that you cannot understand what I posted, as it was indeed not an endorsement for those refusing to pay income tax, quite to the contrary, It was to prove a point, which seems to have flown right past you, out the window, above and beyond your legal horizons.

Law is no longer taught in US Law Schools, policy is taught, as in the UCC, full stop. If you did not learn that in Law School, or (when / if) you have sworn your oath before the Bar, then we know all we need to, thank you for your post.

Good luck, and good business to you.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/672351?source=feed#comment-11758551 11758551
The move is basically due to takeover fears, as was the talk in the Square Mile on Thursday morning.]]> Mon, 19 Nov 2012 04:19:38 -0500
The move is basically due to takeover fears, as was the talk in the Square Mile on Thursday morning.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1006781/comments?source=feed#comment-11713871 11713871 You obviously are determined to argue a point to suit yourself.

The aforementioned explanation which I submitted, covers the information which you suggest has not been explained to your personal satisfaction. I do apologize that I am not able to dumb the explanation down any further. Again, if you are indeed an attorney, you should know exactly what I am talking about.

In the future, please bring cogent, constructive argument, not one-upmanship.]]> Sat, 17 Nov 2012 06:18:33 -0500 You obviously are determined to argue a point to suit yourself.

The aforementioned explanation which I submitted, covers the information which you suggest has not been explained to your personal satisfaction. I do apologize that I am not able to dumb the explanation down any further. Again, if you are indeed an attorney, you should know exactly what I am talking about.

In the future, please bring cogent, constructive argument, not one-upmanship.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1006781/comments?source=feed#comment-11713861 11713861 Part 5, Collection Activity
105.4.1.2
Introduction
(1) Our system of taxation is dependent on taxpayers´ "belief" that the tax laws they follow apply to "everyone", and that the Internal Revenue Service will respect and protect their rights under the law. These are fundamental principles of voluntary compliance.

Shocker, huh?

As it appears, the IRS has no jurisdiction to apply their ´special laws´ for the District of Columbia over American Nationals [nonresident alien non-individuals] who derive no income that is effectively connected with the conduct of ´the performance of the functions of a public office´ [trade or business as defined at 26 USC §7701(a)(26)] within the ´District of Columbia´ [the United States as defined at 26 USC §7408(d)] or participate in any federal franchise scheme.

The Internal Revenue Service is the National Government´s tax bill collection bureau. The statutory laws it operates under are found in Title 26 of the United States Code. This is also referenced as the IRC or Internal Revenue Code. The IRC statutes were created by Congress.

The only group that the IRS is authorized to deal with are those identified in 26 USC §7701(a)(14) to be ´Taxpayers´. The IRC shows that the term ´taxpayer´ means any person subject to any internal revenue tax. There is no issue with their authority to address ´Taxpayers´ but one needs to understand that their statutory laws are applicable only toward those who are ´Taxpayers´ or just as commonly the IRS uses the term "U.S. persons" as ´Taxpayers´.

Since you will again ask for proof, here you go:

As stated in the federal court case Economy Plumbing & Heating v. U.S., 470 F.2d, 585 (1972)

"Revenue laws relate to ´taxpayers´ [legal fictions created by the Congress, officers, employees, certain U.S. citizens, resident aliens, elected officials of the national government, and those who operate in a representative capacity in behalf of the national government such as via a federal franchise established by the Social Security Act of 1935 by being engaged in the conduct and performance of the functions of a public office called a ´trade or business´ within the District of Columbia referenced as ´the United States´] and NOT to ´Non Taxpayers´ [American Nationals a.k.a., non-resident alien non-individuals who have no physical or statutory domicile within the District of Columbia and do not derive any income from being engaged in the conduct of a trade or business within the District of Columbia].

The latter are without their scope of revenue laws. No procedures are prescribed for non-taxpayers and no attempt is made to annul any of their Rights or Remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of federal revenue laws."]]> Sat, 17 Nov 2012 06:18:21 -0500 Part 5, Collection Activity
105.4.1.2
Introduction
(1) Our system of taxation is dependent on taxpayers´ "belief" that the tax laws they follow apply to "everyone", and that the Internal Revenue Service will respect and protect their rights under the law. These are fundamental principles of voluntary compliance.

Shocker, huh?

As it appears, the IRS has no jurisdiction to apply their ´special laws´ for the District of Columbia over American Nationals [nonresident alien non-individuals] who derive no income that is effectively connected with the conduct of ´the performance of the functions of a public office´ [trade or business as defined at 26 USC §7701(a)(26)] within the ´District of Columbia´ [the United States as defined at 26 USC §7408(d)] or participate in any federal franchise scheme.

The Internal Revenue Service is the National Government´s tax bill collection bureau. The statutory laws it operates under are found in Title 26 of the United States Code. This is also referenced as the IRC or Internal Revenue Code. The IRC statutes were created by Congress.

The only group that the IRS is authorized to deal with are those identified in 26 USC §7701(a)(14) to be ´Taxpayers´. The IRC shows that the term ´taxpayer´ means any person subject to any internal revenue tax. There is no issue with their authority to address ´Taxpayers´ but one needs to understand that their statutory laws are applicable only toward those who are ´Taxpayers´ or just as commonly the IRS uses the term "U.S. persons" as ´Taxpayers´.

Since you will again ask for proof, here you go:

As stated in the federal court case Economy Plumbing & Heating v. U.S., 470 F.2d, 585 (1972)

"Revenue laws relate to ´taxpayers´ [legal fictions created by the Congress, officers, employees, certain U.S. citizens, resident aliens, elected officials of the national government, and those who operate in a representative capacity in behalf of the national government such as via a federal franchise established by the Social Security Act of 1935 by being engaged in the conduct and performance of the functions of a public office called a ´trade or business´ within the District of Columbia referenced as ´the United States´] and NOT to ´Non Taxpayers´ [American Nationals a.k.a., non-resident alien non-individuals who have no physical or statutory domicile within the District of Columbia and do not derive any income from being engaged in the conduct of a trade or business within the District of Columbia].

The latter are without their scope of revenue laws. No procedures are prescribed for non-taxpayers and no attempt is made to annul any of their Rights or Remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of federal revenue laws."]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1006781/comments?source=feed#comment-11712301 11712301
ALL LAW, is the protection of property rights.

EVERYTHING ELSE, is policy, AND policy, requires CONSENT.

The public laws no longer exist, we run under policy the UCC. (This is covered by Law Professors in the first semester, in case you forgot it, it was explained again in great detail before you sworn your oath, should you indeed be a member of the Bar.)

Have you given your consent to be taxed ,OR to voluntarily pay taxes?

Don't want to hear it from a Policy Administrator, then hear it from a former Chief Economist of the Federal Reserve Bank:

The UNLAWFUL, (as opposed to illegal), obtaining of another's property by design, but without criminal intent, and with the assent of the owner obtained by ARTIFICE or MISREPRESENTATION. Actual or positive fraud includes cases of the intentional and successful employment of any cunning deception, or artifice, used to circumvent, cheat, or deceive another.

IRS claims they exercise NO CRIMINAL INTENT in extorting the citizen by taking amounts from his checking account with a levy.

IRS claims the "INCOME TAX" is by VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE (with the assent of the owner), BUT CANNOT explain or justify their prosecutions for "WILLFUL FAILURE TO FILE."

IRS returns demand amounts and sums be quoted in "DOLLARS" (an artificial device), which they repeatedly refuse to define!

"What is the unit you know that is a dollar it's just something artificial we throw out there . . . . what you're doing is you're fooling people into thinking they have purchasing power when in fact they do not."

Denis Karnofsky Chief Economist Federal Reserve Bank]]> Sat, 17 Nov 2012 05:50:26 -0500
ALL LAW, is the protection of property rights.

EVERYTHING ELSE, is policy, AND policy, requires CONSENT.

The public laws no longer exist, we run under policy the UCC. (This is covered by Law Professors in the first semester, in case you forgot it, it was explained again in great detail before you sworn your oath, should you indeed be a member of the Bar.)

Have you given your consent to be taxed ,OR to voluntarily pay taxes?

Don't want to hear it from a Policy Administrator, then hear it from a former Chief Economist of the Federal Reserve Bank:

The UNLAWFUL, (as opposed to illegal), obtaining of another's property by design, but without criminal intent, and with the assent of the owner obtained by ARTIFICE or MISREPRESENTATION. Actual or positive fraud includes cases of the intentional and successful employment of any cunning deception, or artifice, used to circumvent, cheat, or deceive another.

IRS claims they exercise NO CRIMINAL INTENT in extorting the citizen by taking amounts from his checking account with a levy.

IRS claims the "INCOME TAX" is by VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE (with the assent of the owner), BUT CANNOT explain or justify their prosecutions for "WILLFUL FAILURE TO FILE."

IRS returns demand amounts and sums be quoted in "DOLLARS" (an artificial device), which they repeatedly refuse to define!

"What is the unit you know that is a dollar it's just something artificial we throw out there . . . . what you're doing is you're fooling people into thinking they have purchasing power when in fact they do not."

Denis Karnofsky Chief Economist Federal Reserve Bank]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1006781/comments?source=feed#comment-11676381 11676381 all else is policy, and policy requires consent. The making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves whatever rights the person then possesses, and prevents the loss of such rights by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel. (UCC 1-308 (old 1-207).7)

You took the oath, did you not?]]> Fri, 16 Nov 2012 07:43:52 -0500 all else is policy, and policy requires consent. The making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves whatever rights the person then possesses, and prevents the loss of such rights by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel. (UCC 1-308 (old 1-207).7)

You took the oath, did you not?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/514311/comments?source=feed#comment-11676321 11676321
Right again, huh?

Dumping assets to pay down debt, remember when I said this a year ago?]]> Fri, 16 Nov 2012 07:43:04 -0500
Right again, huh?

Dumping assets to pay down debt, remember when I said this a year ago?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1006781/comments?source=feed#comment-11674571 11674571 Fri, 16 Nov 2012 04:51:10 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1006781/comments?source=feed#comment-11674521 11674521 UCC).

Here, CONLAW will be looked at, regards tax.

FACT:
It is an unconstitutional violation of due process of law for any judge or prosecutor to "presume" that one may be a franchisee called a "taxpayer" without any supporting evidence. All such presumptions also amount to the establishment of a religion by the government, because they amount to a belief that either is not supported by evidence or is not required to be supported by evidence.

Further, if Federal courts can’t make declaratory judgments relating to federal taxes, then how can they decide that one may be a "taxpayer" who is subject to the franchise agreement to begin with? If they are enjoined from declaring people "taxpayers", then they can’t enforce the franchise agreement against anyone because they can’t determine who is subject to it.

Understand the legal reality, namely that "taxpayer" means "fiduciary" and that has to be asserted at what may be the one and only time to compel "them" judicially to prove up the basis for their purported claim, namely the necessary trust agreement on which their claim depends.

CONCLUSION:

1. The so-called "income" tax can only be applied to those individuals engaged in certain revenue taxable activities as defined in the revenue statutes of the United States, and

2. Some agents of the Internal Revenue service routinely apply the so-called "income" tax to individuals that are not engaged in those activities,

It can be concluded that those agents are misapplying the revenue statutes of the United States.

Furthermore, since:

1. Certain agents of the Internal Revenue service have been informed of this misapplication of the revenue statutes of the United States, and

2. These same agents of the Internal Revenue Service continue to misapply the revenue statutes of the United States,

It can be concluded that those agents are misapplying the revenue statutes with the full knowledge that they are, in fact, misapplying those statutes and, thus, operating under the color of law in such a manner as to constitute fraud.

Furthermore, since the aforesaid agents use coercion and threats of fines, penalties, interest, and incarceration to fraudulently enforce those misapplied revenue statutes of the United States, those agents are operating under the color of law in such a manner as to constitute extortion.]]> Fri, 16 Nov 2012 04:50:26 -0500 UCC).

Here, CONLAW will be looked at, regards tax.

FACT:
It is an unconstitutional violation of due process of law for any judge or prosecutor to "presume" that one may be a franchisee called a "taxpayer" without any supporting evidence. All such presumptions also amount to the establishment of a religion by the government, because they amount to a belief that either is not supported by evidence or is not required to be supported by evidence.

Further, if Federal courts can’t make declaratory judgments relating to federal taxes, then how can they decide that one may be a "taxpayer" who is subject to the franchise agreement to begin with? If they are enjoined from declaring people "taxpayers", then they can’t enforce the franchise agreement against anyone because they can’t determine who is subject to it.

Understand the legal reality, namely that "taxpayer" means "fiduciary" and that has to be asserted at what may be the one and only time to compel "them" judicially to prove up the basis for their purported claim, namely the necessary trust agreement on which their claim depends.

CONCLUSION:

1. The so-called "income" tax can only be applied to those individuals engaged in certain revenue taxable activities as defined in the revenue statutes of the United States, and

2. Some agents of the Internal Revenue service routinely apply the so-called "income" tax to individuals that are not engaged in those activities,

It can be concluded that those agents are misapplying the revenue statutes of the United States.

Furthermore, since:

1. Certain agents of the Internal Revenue service have been informed of this misapplication of the revenue statutes of the United States, and

2. These same agents of the Internal Revenue Service continue to misapply the revenue statutes of the United States,

It can be concluded that those agents are misapplying the revenue statutes with the full knowledge that they are, in fact, misapplying those statutes and, thus, operating under the color of law in such a manner as to constitute fraud.

Furthermore, since the aforesaid agents use coercion and threats of fines, penalties, interest, and incarceration to fraudulently enforce those misapplied revenue statutes of the United States, those agents are operating under the color of law in such a manner as to constitute extortion.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1006781/comments?source=feed#comment-11674501 11674501
My choclate side.]]> Fri, 16 Nov 2012 04:50:14 -0500
My choclate side.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1009811/comments?source=feed#comment-11674491 11674491
IF HMG wants to start playing at that, good luck. Anything existing within the Square Mile is exempt by law, good luck.]]> Fri, 16 Nov 2012 04:50:11 -0500
IF HMG wants to start playing at that, good luck. Anything existing within the Square Mile is exempt by law, good luck.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1006781/comments?source=feed#comment-11628531 11628531
Democracy, is one of the most dangerous words in the dictionary, as the vast majority of Americans believe it means helping others and being fair, when nothing could be further from the truth. You see how a simple word and concept can be devastating for a country without the reading comprehension level of a 10 year old child.

99% of the population have no earthly idea of what Democracy is, if they did, they surely wouldn't be voting the way they are.

* Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, nearly two centuries ago, had this to say about Democracy: " A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always followed by a Dictatorship."

Ask Germany how that worked out for them, nu?

DEFINED
A democracy is majority rule, and is destructive of liberty because there is no law to prevent the majority from trampling on individual rights, full stop. Whatever the majority says, goes. There is no debate, it's an order.

PRACTICE
A lynch mob is an example of "pure democracy" in action. There is only one dissenting vote, and that is cast by the person at the end of the rope.

.........as opposed to a Republic..............

Republic: Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.

* Remember 50 years ago in school, (at least in Hebrew School) when the entire class recited the "Pledge of Allegiance" ?

"...and to the Republic, for which it stands"

RESULT:
Sadly, the 99%, includes 100% of the "uneducated", helping to drive this country into the wall.]]> Thu, 15 Nov 2012 05:57:10 -0500
Democracy, is one of the most dangerous words in the dictionary, as the vast majority of Americans believe it means helping others and being fair, when nothing could be further from the truth. You see how a simple word and concept can be devastating for a country without the reading comprehension level of a 10 year old child.

99% of the population have no earthly idea of what Democracy is, if they did, they surely wouldn't be voting the way they are.

* Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, nearly two centuries ago, had this to say about Democracy: " A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always followed by a Dictatorship."

Ask Germany how that worked out for them, nu?

DEFINED
A democracy is majority rule, and is destructive of liberty because there is no law to prevent the majority from trampling on individual rights, full stop. Whatever the majority says, goes. There is no debate, it's an order.

PRACTICE
A lynch mob is an example of "pure democracy" in action. There is only one dissenting vote, and that is cast by the person at the end of the rope.

.........as opposed to a Republic..............

Republic: Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.

* Remember 50 years ago in school, (at least in Hebrew School) when the entire class recited the "Pledge of Allegiance" ?

"...and to the Republic, for which it stands"

RESULT:
Sadly, the 99%, includes 100% of the "uneducated", helping to drive this country into the wall.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1006781/comments?source=feed#comment-11628451 11628451
In 1937, taxes were still levied through Public Law, as prior to 1938, the Supreme Court was dealing with Public Law. Since 1938, the Supreme Court has dealt with Public Policy.

This system of law was codified as the Uniform Commercial Code, and has been adopted in every state.

"Nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands... " These are the words of Judge Learned Hand (1872-1961), Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals in the case of Gregory v. Helvering, 69 F.2d 809, 810 (2d Cir. 1934), aff´d, 293 U.S. 465, 55 S.Ct. 266, 79 L.Ed. 596 (1935)

"Anyone may arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; He is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the Treasury; There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes.
Over and over again courts have said there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible, everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right; for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands. (f) Taxes are an enforceable extraction, and not a voluntary contribution."

COCLUSION
The IRS cannot assess a Citizen of a state of the Union (not capitalized with reason) living and working in said state, who does not file a tax return, or have any "information returns" filed against him.

* So you see, the IRS would like you to believe that they can assess anyone, anytime, but that is a lie.. However, the IRS does sometimes assess a "non-filing" Citizen by committing computer fraud. The IRS simply enters a code into their computer system that converts you to a corporation in their database. In effect it changes "John Q. Citizen" into "John Q. Citizen, Inc." (so to speak). Once that fraudulent entry has been made on their computer, it then "permits" them to [fraudulently] assess a tax against you.

Start asking "the right questions".]]> Thu, 15 Nov 2012 05:50:23 -0500
In 1937, taxes were still levied through Public Law, as prior to 1938, the Supreme Court was dealing with Public Law. Since 1938, the Supreme Court has dealt with Public Policy.

This system of law was codified as the Uniform Commercial Code, and has been adopted in every state.

"Nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands... " These are the words of Judge Learned Hand (1872-1961), Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals in the case of Gregory v. Helvering, 69 F.2d 809, 810 (2d Cir. 1934), aff´d, 293 U.S. 465, 55 S.Ct. 266, 79 L.Ed. 596 (1935)

"Anyone may arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; He is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the Treasury; There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes.
Over and over again courts have said there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible, everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right; for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands. (f) Taxes are an enforceable extraction, and not a voluntary contribution."

COCLUSION
The IRS cannot assess a Citizen of a state of the Union (not capitalized with reason) living and working in said state, who does not file a tax return, or have any "information returns" filed against him.

* So you see, the IRS would like you to believe that they can assess anyone, anytime, but that is a lie.. However, the IRS does sometimes assess a "non-filing" Citizen by committing computer fraud. The IRS simply enters a code into their computer system that converts you to a corporation in their database. In effect it changes "John Q. Citizen" into "John Q. Citizen, Inc." (so to speak). Once that fraudulent entry has been made on their computer, it then "permits" them to [fraudulently] assess a tax against you.

Start asking "the right questions".]]>