Taxation as Looting

asset forfeiture

Chicago Tribune 01DEC1932

So the People’s Party got 9% of the vote in 1892, then the Democratic Party copied the Communist Manifesto income tax plank into their own platform. So… what came next, once the Progressive Party levered its passage?

Chapter 9

Manley Sullivan

            A Carolina bootlegger and car dealer named Manley Sullivan was convicted of income tax evasion, but appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court in 1926. Sullivan claimed that since bootlegging was illegal, filing tax returns for it would amount to self-incrimination prohibited by the Fifth Amendment. Sullivan won on appeal October 19 of 1926, but Assistant Attorney General Mabel Willebrandt appealed the Circuit Court’s decision, and the Supreme Court granted a hearing March 7, 1927.

The actual date on which attorney Manley Sullivan (or Manly Sullivan, records are inconsistent)  was originally charged, and in what location, is one of the most tightly-held secrets in American jurisprudence.  Federal Reserve bank balances (in millions) began falling nationwide when the decision freeing Sullivan under the 5th Amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court. Source, Lawrence, 1929. The nation’s economy at the time was roughly $100 billion in gold, and the Federal budget about $4 billion.

FRB reserves accelerated when the 5th Amendment was upheld in 1926, then began falling after the conviction was reinstated

The trial ended on May 16, 1927, reversing the appeals court decision and effectively nullifying the Fifth Amendment.[1] This time the dip in stock prices was much smaller. For one thing the discount rate had been carefully lowered since September of 1926, disguising somewhat any stock market effects.[2] On the heels of the Sullivan decision came the Marron case, in which the Supreme Court approved the use of a San Francisco speakeasy proprietor’s illegally seized books and records. Marron was also argued by Mabel Willebrandt and her victory eliminated what Fourth Amendment protection had survived the wartime Espionage Act.[3] Revenue agents were empowered to seize records and force confessions at will, eliminating the ditty of the times:

My sister sells snow to the snow-birds
My father makes bootlegger gin,
My mother sells love for a living,
My God! how the money rolls in.
My brother’s a big missionary
He saves little girlies from sin
He’ll save you a blonde for five dollars
My God! how the money rolls in.

 

[1] (U.S. v. Sullivan 5/16/27 274 U.S. 259)

[2] (Lawrence 1929 286-289)

[3] (Willebrandt 1929 241) (Marron v. United States 11/21/27 275 U.S. 192)

League of Looter Nations, 1929

After President Harding and the Senate said no, the League of European stupefacient warmongers limped on without us. So what happened? Here is an excerpt from Prohibition and the Crash by J Henry Phillips

Chapter 12

The League of Nations

            On the international front the State Department Division of Far Eastern Affairs had approvingly read the Geneva Opium Convention of 1925, and lent a sympathetic ear to the so-called Scheme of Stipulated Supply. The idea was to use futures trading for all legal narcotics procurements. The effect would be to greatly limit production for the illegal market.[1] The World Anti-Narcotic Union had held a gala meeting early in March and obtained verbal support from Governor Al Smith, Mayor Jimmy Walker and Italian dictator Benito Mussolini—but nothing was actually done.[2]

Since 1924 Pennsylvania Congressman Stephen G. Porter had been an influential figure in U.S. drug negotiations with the League of Nations. But the man was a mystical pedant and alienated League members (See and compare A.G. Sessions). Indeed, it was on Porter’s motion that the American delegation to the Geneva conference had petulantly withdrawn from the Convention of 1925. The truth was that delegates from India, Turkey and Persia understood perfectly well that any sudden curbs on opium production would bring on acute economic crises and political instability in their countries. Porter understood none of this and stormed out in a huff, convinced of the foreign delegates’ insincerity. Even before the Great War German chemical interests had struggled against curbs on drugs, and not without reason.[3]

 

[1] (Taylor 1969 211, 228) (Eisenlohr 1934 129)

[2] (NYT 3/8/28 8)

[3] (Taylor 1969 178-9, 184; 193, 201, 107-8, 213) (Eisenlohr 1934 227, 231, 256-7)

 

Voter Comparison Shopping

When was the last time you saw political party platform planks compared? The entrenched Kleptocracy parties both claimed to be different in 2016. Are they?

The Democrats still want your kids incarcerated for marijuana, only now they want to class it in the same category as methamphetamine and cocaine instead of heroin. The Libertarian Party is against sending men with guns to kick down doors–especially when no harm has been done to merit such violence. The Republican Party wants that Old Testament Prohibitionism that caused most of our financial crashes and economic depressions. Sound farfetched? Exaggerated?

Here is the 2016 straddle plank the Democratic party added to its lengthy platform by the narrowest of margins before choosing a candidate:

Because of conflicting federal and state laws concerning marijuana, we encourage the federal government to remove marijuana from the list of “Schedule 1″ federal controlled substances and to appropriately regulate it, providing a reasoned pathway for future legalization.

Here is the Libertarian plank that covers policy on marijuana:

The prescribed role of government is to protect the rights of every individual including the right to life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited in their application to violations of the rights of others through force or fraud, or to deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Therefore, we favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes. [Banned from televised debates]

Here is the Republican plank on some drugs:

The progress made over the last three decades against drug abuse is eroding, whether for cultural reasons or for lack of national leadership. In many jurisdictions, marijuana is virtually legalized despite its illegality under federal law. At the other end of the drug spectrum, heroin use nearly doubled from 2003 to 2013, while deaths from heroin have quadrupled. All this highlights the continuing conflicts and contradictions in public attitudes and public policy toward illegal substances. Congress and a new administration should consider the long- range implications of these trends for public health and safety and prepare to deal with the problematic consequences.

True, the Dems pretend to believe they can repeal the Second Amendment, enact Kristallnacht laws, abolish guns and turn These States into a banana republic or European satrapy. And the GO-Pee platform flatly asserts it wants to change the 14th Amendment so that “All Persons Born” will again be interpreted to mean “All Ova Fertilized,” everywhere, not just in Dixieland as it was before the Libertarian Party electoral vote earned in December of 1972. That vote led to the Roe v. Wade decision recognizing that pregnant women have individual rights in January 1973. (Yep. Libertarian spoiler votes have been vacating bad jurisprudence for 45 years). Their biggest mistake was to cave in to Green Watermelon spoiler votes aimed at making electricity generation more difficult and expensive than it already is. That is the only real difference between the GOP-Tea Party-Klan and the DEM-Green-CPUSA United Fronts.

There is no difference between being flung in jail or shot by conscience-stricken Democrats or lustily bragging Republicans.  Both want hemp users arrested by the violence of law–that, fines and imprisonment are what their platforms offer voters–and visit upon those too young to vote or buy beer. Prohibition laws are marketing tools passed and enforced for a profit that is well-hidden from view. They distort the supply and demand curves to raise prices; that is the purpose of all marketing.

If you are surprised that these precursors to legislation are what make the laws, try not to be surprised by bad translations of legal material in court.  A competent court interpreter can be as valuable as a competent attorney in defense of your rights.

 

 

 

Freedom, Democracy and Investment

Ask anyone what they voted for, and the conceptually-challenged invariably respond with some grinning politician. Even folks who expect to benefit along with the grinning politician–by increased transfer payments, diminished taxes, or the oppression of some hated minority–will never admit to a personal stake in the outcome. Voting for someone else is altruism. Voting for one’s own interests is selfishness.

But just ask anyone what they invested in, and the answer is completely different. Nobody invests in George Soros, Charles Schwab or Bernie Madoff, but rather, uranium futures, mortgage debt, emerging markets or something else they expect will gain value faster than governments print money.  Your valuable money is clearly something you invest, so why not invest your valuable vote in something that will eventually change the laws to your own benefit?

Amoral yet technically sophisticated voters voted for the largest political party not intent on banning reliable electricity. That party’s candidate won. A comparison of the Dem and GOP platforms shows that energy policy was the only clear difference between the two.  Democratic promises to repeal the Second Amendment and enact  Kristallnacht gun laws, like Republican bragadoccio vowing to repeal the Fourteenth Amendment and restore coathanger abortions, can safely be ignored. Both parties want the cops to continue shooting kids in the back over herbs and potions. Both want to bomb and deport foreigners, invade and spy on everyone. The electrical power ban based on pseudoscience–a plank generated by the CPUSA and Green Party prior to the Y2k election–was the only real platform difference.

A ban CO2 plank imported from tiny splinter parties sufficed first to weaken (in 2012), then to topple the ruling Democratic party. This is all the more impressive since the GOP had in 2007 clearly crashed the US economy and weakened the rest of the world’s economy. This they had already accomplished in 1929 and 1987  by enacting and exporting superstitious prohibition policies lifted from the likes of the Prohibition, Tea and Ku-klux Consta2shun parties. The lesson is that rent-seeking “major” parties seek to neutralize adverse spoiler votes by co-opting the planks of small parties. You did not read all 70 thousand words of the Dem and GO-Pee platforms? Lobbyists, government employee union goons, Congressmen and Senators read every page carefully.

The Populist party got the communist income tax into federal statutes in 1894 with a lousy 9% of the 1892 vote. Democratic Party adoption of that same plank–copied from the People’s Party–enacted the Income Tax Amendment in less than a decade. The Socialist party got its entire 1928 platform written into law by steadfast voting. A decade earlier, the Prohibition party turned These United States into an unemployed penal institution by using its 1.4% of the vote to amend the Constitution and make beer a felony. Freedom was eroded and crippled through leveraged voting by a tiny minority.

So why not eliminate the insincere middlemen and vote for your own freedom, just as you invest in your own financial future? Your libertarian vote will immediately gain 6 to 36 times as much vote-changing impact as a vote thrown away on the kleptocracy. Think about it. THAT’s leverage no panhandling pressure group can offer, and it costs you less than your spare change.

If there are laws, court decisions or political issues in Spanish or Portuguese that you would like to see or hear in English–or vice versa–why not visit my political, legal and engineering translation service?

The Five and Ten Law, March, 1929

Light beer (and even sauerkraut) became a major federal felony 24 hours before Herbert Hoover, a lifelong teetotaler, placed his hand upon a religious tome and became President. 

Chapter 42

The Five and Ten

 Senator Wesley Livsey Jones of Washington—possibly the most fanatical prohibitionist in the upper Chamber—again pressed for his year-old “increased penalties” plan on February 19.[1] “Be it enacted,” he proposed in his bill, “That wherever a penalty or penalties are prescribed in criminal prosecution by the National Prohibition Act, as amended and supplemented, for the illegal manufacture, sale, transportation, importation or exportation of intoxicating liquor, as defined by Section 1, Title II of the National Prohibition Act, the penalty imposed for each such offense shall be a fine not to exceed $10,000 or imprisonment not to exceed five years, or both.”[2] The national media dubbed it the Five & Ten, but the Chicago Tribune preferred to call it the Jones Law.

The gauntlet was thrown. Drys, championed by Senator William A. Borah of Idaho, hailed it as essential to maintaining a constitutional form of government. Wets, led by Senator James A. Reed of Missouri, classed it as improper, unjust and cruel, and on raged the debate. The Tribune compared it to the Fugitive Slave Law, but the Senate passed it anyway, albeit with the added proviso that “it is the intent of Congress that the court, in imposing sentence hereunder, should discriminate between casual or slight violations and habitual sales of intoxicating liquor, or attempts to commercialize violations of the law.”[3]

The House passed it as it stood, and President Calvin Coolidge signed it into law just twenty-four hours before an optimistic Herbert Hoover was to blithely take an oath to enforce it. But Hoover wouldn’t let it go at that. To this lynch mob atmosphere of hysteria he added: “Of the undoubted abuses which have grown up under the 18th amendment, part are due to (…) the failure of some States to accept their share of the responsibility for concurrent enforcement and to the failure of many State and local officials to accept the obligation under their oath of office zealously to enforce the laws. With the failures from these many causes has come a dangerous expansion in the criminal elements who have found enlarged opportunities for dealing in illegal liquor. (…) I have been selected by you to execute and enforce the laws of the country. (…) To those of criminal mind there can be no appeal but vigorous enforcement of the law. Fortunately they are but a small percentage of our people. Their activities must be stopped.”[4]

A delegation from the Women’s Christian Temperance Union was photographed on the White House lawn. Herbert Hoover had lunch with Assistant Attorney General Mabel Walker Willebrandt, then met with Senator Morris Sheppard of corn-producing Texas, author of the 18th Amendment. Time called Hoover the “Dry Hope,” and those first few days in office seemed to confirm exactly that. Bootleggers took no comfort whatsoever, and some of them began to wonder whether they’d overstayed the market.

An excerpt from Prohibition and the Crash, by JHenryPhillips.com

[1] (NYT 3/24/29 27)

[2] (Time Capsule 3/4/29 66)

[3] (CT 2/19/29 1, 3, 2/21/29 12)

[4] (Hoover 1929 1974 2-10)

Fiscal Conservative?

bushmonkeyGeorge W Bush was the last Republican president. He issued Executive Orders such as…
13279: …Consistent with the Free Exercise Clause and the Free Speech Clause of the Constitution, faith-based organizations should be eligible to compete for Federal financial assistance used to support social service programs and to participate fully in the social service programs supported with Federal financial assistance without impairing their independence, autonomy, expression, or religious character. (…)
Specified agency heads shall, in coordination with the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (White House OFBCI), review and evaluate existing policies that have implications for faith-based and community organizations in order to assess the consistency of such policies with the fundamental principles and policymaking criteria articulated in section 2 of this order.

So who are we talking about in this Executive Order, issued amid total financial collapse?

Sec. 8. Functions of Heads of Departments Concerned and Additional Functions of the Director of National Intelligence.

(a) To the extent permitted by law, the DNI and the heads of departments concerned shall provide such information and assistance as the PIAB and the IOB may need to perform functions under this order.

(b) The heads of departments concerned shall:

(i) ensure that the DNI receives:

(A) copies of reports submitted to the IOB pursuant to section 1.7(d) of Executive Order 12333, or a corresponding provision of any successor order; and

(B) such information and assistance as the DNI may need to perform functions under this order; and

(ii) designate the offices within their respective organizations that shall submit reports to the IOB required by Executive Order and inform the DNI and the IOB of such designations; and

(iii) ensure that departments concerned comply with instructions issued by the DNI under subsection 7(a)(ii) of this order.

(c) The head of a department concerned who does not implement a recommendation to that head of department from the PIAB under subsection 4(b) of this order or from the IOB under subsections 6(c) or 6(d) of this order shall promptly report through the DNI to the Board that made the recommendation, or to the President, the reasons for not implementing the recommendation.

(d) The DNI shall ensure that the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency performs the functions with respect to the Central Intelligence Agency under this order that a head of a department concerned performs with respect to organizations within the intelligence community that are part of that department.

Sec. 9. References and Transition. (a) References in Executive Orders other than this order, or in any other presidential guidance, to the “President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board” shall be deemed to be references to the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board established by this order.

(b) Individuals who are members of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board under Executive Order 12863 of September 13, 1993, as amended, immediately prior to the signing of this order shall be members of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board immediately upon the signing of this order, to serve as such consistent with this order until the date that is 15 months following the date of this order.

(c) Individuals who are members of the Intelligence Oversight Board under Executive Order 12863 immediately prior to the signing of this order shall be members of the Intelligence Oversight Board under this order, to serve as such consistent with this order until the date that is 15 months following the date of this order.

(d) The individual serving as Executive Director of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board immediately prior to the signing of this order shall serve as the Executive Director of the PIAB until such person resigns, dies, or is removed, or upon appointment of a successor under this order and shall serve as the Executive Director of the IOB until an Executive Director of the IOB is appointed or designated under this order.

Um… wasn’t Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate, a fiscally responsible elected official for two terms as governor of New Mexico?

Prohibition, Crash, Repeal, repeat

Depression drives repeal

Black indicates Dry Counties banning Drink in a 1913 newspaper

A lot of misdirection goes into keeping voters from noticing recurrent patterns. No Republican wants to hear awkward questions like “Why did the economy collapse during alcohol prohibition in 1907 and 1929?” It took the GOP twenty years to erase connection between Prohibition and The Crash and again put religious zealots in the saddle–with Richard Nixon as Vice-President. “Under God” was added to the Bellamy Pledge of Allegiance and graven images were added to our currency.
Yet the record of history won’t go away. The internet has made it possible for people to look up unrevised history and see “politics as she is.” Take the Panic of 1907, when the labeling requirements of the Pure Food and Drug Law of 1906, brought on by a Chinese boycott of US exports, became enforceable. Sears and Montgomery Wards could no longer quietly ship heroin-spiked alcoholism cures and syringes to China. Distillers were brought under scrutiny as the US Pharmacopeia became a legal standard for defining words such as “whiskey.” Surely similar events had nothing to do with the asset-forfeiture Crash the George Bush Jr. Administration oversaw in 2007–that by 2008 had completely collapsed the United States economy. Or could it? The one word you never see in connection with the Panic of 1907, Crash of 1929 or Depressions of 1932, 1988, or 2007-12 is PROHIBITION.

During TR and Taft’s Republican “noughts,” only Mr Dooley had the courage to mention the spiking of whiskey with cheap morphine in the South. There was a morphine glut because the Chinese were again (as in 1837, 1840, 1856, 1900 and 1907) upset enough to again forcibly exclude the dumping of genuinely addictive narcotics over there. Such dumping was indeed permitted by a punitive treaty the US had ratified after the Boxer Rebellion. The dumping of opiates in the Philippine Islands and Hawaii at about this time led to a frightening surge in addiction. Pretty soon, Americans enforcing sudden “cold turkey” prohibition in the Philippine Islands (while also banning the relatively less harmful alternative, beer) were picked off by snipers and hacked to bits in insurgent raids.

The US economy felt a depression in 1903-04 as another haughty treaty (defining Christians as good) heaped humiliation upon the Celestial Empire. Domestically, the excesses of crony mercantilism clashed with fanatical prohibitionism, this time under Republican Theodore Roosevelt. It was Teddy who, as Police Commissioner, had closed down so many saloons in New York City. Beer was banned from all US military canteens and Post Exchanges. The 47th Annual Brewers’ Convention in 1907 reported that “Legislation of an unfavorable character has been undertaken in the legislatures of many states.” Ice was what made beer cold. Then as now “ice house” was usually a name for places cold beer was served. Dry Christianity, fresh from legislating Chinese Exclusion laws and labeling of narcotics as such, now declared Total War on The Ice Trust, including Knickerbocker, and Gambrinus Kingdom of Beer.  This struggle, assisted by Attorney-General Bonaparte, stretched and tore at the fabric of the US economy in the year 1907.

The Panic of 1907 was driven mainly by unintended consequences of prohibitionism, mostly in the Deep South. Alabama, for instance, made beer and the Demon Rum hideous crimes, with most of the state bone-dry in early 1907. A year later, after the economic collapse, the picture was completely reversed, yet no one admitted that prohibition had caused the Crash and Panic or that repeal was the logical response.

1907panic2007

When the stock market began its collapse in March of 1907, the President loudly denied government action had been the cause. Likewise with both George Bush asset-forfeiture Crusades–especially once the government had been packed with “faith-based” organizations and activists for Bush Jr’s second term. Sure enough, there were recessions in 1988, 1992 and 2007. Here is George Bush acting like the government had nothing to do with the debacle. Sure enough, not a word is said about the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) his Administration unleashed. But New Mexico, Vermont, Michigan, New Jersey, Arizona, Massachussetts, Washington, Maryland, Alaska and Oregon all legalized marijuana within seven years of George Bush’s asset-forfeiture crash. States had reacted to collapse in much the same way after President Hoover’s use of asset forfeiture to enforce laws that made light beer a felony.

The Flash Crash of May 6, 2016 coincided with DEA seizures of bank accounts belonging to Colombian nationals, and the Flash Crash of March 18, 2015 coincided down to the minute with international reaction to the release of the Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, Volume II, Money Laundering and Financial Crimes on that date. None of these things are mentioned in the financial press or platforms of the entrenched political parties.  But the 2016 Republican Party Platform says nothing about the financial hazards of coercive prohibitionism, but rather:

The progress made over the last three decades against drug abuse is eroding, whether for cultural reasons or for lack of national leadership. In many jurisdictions, marijuana is virtually legalized despite its illegality under federal law.

Compare that with the 2016 Libertarian Party Platform:

Therefore, we favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.

Spare a thought for these myriad shocks to the US (and world) economies. Consider the safety and financial future of the younger generation as you prepare to vote.