My wife and I live in Butuan area of Agusan Del Norte, Mindanao, Philippines. We recently took a trip to Bislig city, for a funeral, then continued to Davao to get my permanent visa started. We found a good pension house in Bislig City for only 480 pesos a day non air conditioned room, no internet. It was nice with two windows a double bed, fan, a shower and flushing toilet in the “CR”. The name of the place was Viola’s Pension house. In nabon baranguy, just past Managoy. Get into town from the bus stop and just tell the triksicad driver to take you to Viola’s pension.
It cost us nearly 500 pesos to go from Butuan to Bislig city, Managoy baranguy, on bachelor tour bus’s. The main bus line in this area. They have air conditioned bus’s and non air conditioned bus’s. The non air conditioned one is all we could take to go to Bislig city. Roads were good on the way there and it was a nice scenic trip, though long. It took us 6 hours on the bus from Butuan to Managoy baranguy, Bislig city.
The Bus from Managoy to Davao was not such a nice trip. Very few paved roads up the mountains. Slow, rough and not much fun. Though the scenery was some of the best I’ve seen since I was in the Philippines. Deep valleys below with trees that reached up to touch us seemingly on the bus, piercing the fog down below eerily. About half way into the mountains from Bislig city .. those people have to take a treck to get to a store. It cost us almost another 500 peso to get from Bislig to Davao on the bus. 200 plus each.
Once in Davao we went to matina, macarther highway to boholand hotel and apartelle. Only 400 peso a night for an air conditioned room with private CR and cable TV. No shower… just the water tap and a bucket and tabo. There were also rooms available without tv/cable or a/c for 250 peso a night. Just a bed and a fan with CR/no shower. There were inexpensive places to eat in either direction for filipino prices. My wife and I ate a few meals for just over 100 peso for both of us per meal.
I hope someone finds this information to be useful.

Have a great day unless you have other plans .

“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not
believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your
religious books.  Do not believe in anything merely on the authority
of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because
they have been handed down for many generations. But after
observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with
reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then
accept it and live up to it.”
- Budda

In this issue:

* Is the U.S. a Fascist Police-State?
* Scary Stuff
* U.S. government panel now pushing “vaccinations for all!” No
exceptions
* Breaking News! Home Office admits thousands have been illegally
stopped and searched under counter-terror laws (and could get compensation
* Federal Suit Attacks Constitutionality of N.J. Money-Laundering
Statute
* Good News – Original ‘Echelon’ secret UK-US spookery treaty published
* Tips for the TSA
* Bad News – Smart meters – the latest example of Britain leading the world in
invasive technology
* Crocodile Dundee Paul Hogan’s off-shore tax accounts to be
published Paul Hogan, the Australian actor, has lost a long-running
legal battle to keep the contents of his tax documents secret, paving
the way for details of his offshore accounts to be published.
* Food for thought – Is Someone Spying On Your Cell-Phone Calls?
* Police State – Toronto Transformed Into Locked Down Police State
* Horror Stories – Police Said to Taze Grandmother
* The District of Criminals – Pentagon revives Rumsfeld-era domestic spying unit
* The Coalition continues with 28 day detention
* Hot Tips – Funds Invest in Privacy Start-Ups Companies With Ideas on How to
Protect Personal Information Are a New Favorite of Venture Capitalists
* Advisory Financial Crimes Enforcement Network Advisory
* Dutch St. Maarten and the BES islands
* Dumbing Down – Tesco demands ID from 33 year old man – and refuses to sell him
alcohol when he hasn’t got any
* Dumb Laws – RateMyCop User Ensnared in ‘Dumbest Case Ever’
* Dumb signs – Are Cameras the New Guns?
* Dumb facts – Fined for the length of your dog lead A cash-strapped council has come
up with an ingenious way of raking in revenue from law-abiding people
* Dumb criminal acts – Fort Knox Nurseries
* Cannon Fodder – Remember, the internet is not a private place
* Oz/Nzed Corner
* Bug Bites: Chinese Supercomputer Is Ranked World’s Second-Fastest, Challenging
U.S. Dominance
* Wikileaks Was Launched With Documents Intercepted From Tor
* Shamrock’s Missive
* Quotes
* Tid Bits – ‘Mal-intent’ may be the future of security
* More Tid Bits – Bill would give DHS emergency cyber powers
* Bits and bobs – Surveillance cameras in Birmingham track Muslims’ every move
* More Bits n bobs – False economy
* Deflationary Depression and Purging To Come
* Brazilian banker’s crypto baffles FBI
* Hints & Tips – Biometric cash machine lands in Europe
* Letters to the Editor
* Quote of the month!
* PT Shamrock’s Exclusive Member’s Site!

*** Is the U.S. a Fascist Police-State?
- Zero Hedge

With the Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project decision (No. 08-1498,
also 09-89) of the Supreme Court, coupled with the Arar v. Ashcroft
denial of certiorari (No. 09-923), the case for claiming that the
U.S. is a fascist police-state just got a whole lot stronger.

First of all, what is a “fascist police-state”?

A police-state uses the law as a mechanism to control any challenges
to its power by the citizenry, rather than as a mechanism to insure a
civil society among the individuals. The state decides the laws, is
the sole arbiter of the law, and can selectively (and capriciously)
decide to enforce the law to the benefit or detriment of one
individual or group or another.

In a police-state, the citizens are “free” only so long as their
actions remain within the confines of the law as dictated by the
state. If the individual’s claims of rights or freedoms conflict with
the state, or if the individual acts in ways deemed detrimental to the
state, then the state will repress the citizenry, by force if
necessary. (And in the end, it’s always necessary.)

What’s key to the definition of a police-state is the lack of redress:
If there is no justice system which can compel the state to cede to
the citizenry, then there is a police-state. If there exists apro
forma justice system, but which in practice is unavailable to the
ordinary citizen because of systemic obstacles (for instance, cost or
bureaucratic hindrance), or which against all logic or reason
consistently finds in favor of the state even in the most egregious
and obviously contradictory cases then that pro forma judiciary system
is nothing but a sham: A tool of the state’s repression against its
citizens. Consider the Soviet court system the classic example.

A police-state is not necessarily a dictatorship. On the contrary, it
can even take the form of a representative democracy. A police-state
is not defined by its leadership structure, but rather, by its
self-protection against the individual.

A definition of “fascism” is tougher to come by it’s almost as tough
to come up with as a definition of “pornography”.

The sloppy definition is simply totalitarianism of the Right,
“communism” being the sloppy definition of totalitarianism of the
Left. But that doesn’t help much.

For our purposes, I think we should use the syndicalist-corporatist
definition as practiced by Mussolini: Society as a collection of
corporate and union interests, where the state is one more competing
interest among many, albeit the most powerful of them all, and thus as
a virtue of its size and power, taking precedence over all other
factions. In other words, society is a “street-gang” model that I
discussed before. The individual has power only as derived from his
belonging to a particular faction or group individuals do not have
inherent worth, value or standing.

Now then! Having gotten that out of the way, where were we?

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project: The Humanitarian Law Project was
advising groups deemed “terrorists” on how to negotiate non-violently
with various political agencies, including the UN. In this 6-3
decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court ruled that that speech
constituted “aiding and abetting” a terrorist organization, as the
Court determined that speech was “material support”. Therefore, the
Executive and/or Congress had the right to prohibit anyone from
speaking to any terrorist organization if that speech embodied
“material support” to the terrorist organization.

The decision is being noted by the New York Times as a Freedom of
Speech issue; other commentators seem to be viewing it in those terms
as well.

My own take is, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project is not about
limiting free speech it’s about the state expanding it power to
repress. The decision limits free speech in passing, because what it
is really doing is expanding the state’s power to repress whomever it
unilaterally determines is a terrorist.

In the decision, the Court explicitly ruled that “Congress and the
Executive are uniquely positioned to make principled distinctions
between activities that will further terrorist conduct and undermine
United States foreign policy, and those that will not.” In other
words, the Court makes it clear that Congress and/or the Executive can
solely and unilaterally determine who is a “terrorist threat”, and who
is not without recourse to judicial review of this decision. And if
the Executive and/or Congress determines that this group here or that
group there is a “terrorist organization”, then their free speech is
curtailed as is the free speech of anyone associating with them, no
matter how demonstrably peaceful that speech or interaction is.

For example, if the Executive in the form of the Secretary of
State decides that, say, WikiLeaks or Amnesty International is a
terrorist organization, well then by golly, it is a terrorist
organization. It no longer has any right to free speech nor can
anyone else speak to them or associate with them, for risk of being
charged with providing “material support” to this heinous terrorist
organization known as Amnesty International.

But furthermore, as per Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, anyone
associating with WikiLeaks including, presumably, those who read it,
and most certainly those who give it information about government
abuses would be guilty of aiding and abetting terrorism. In other
words, giving WikiLeaks “material support” by providing primary
evidence of government abuse would render one a terrorist.

This form of repression does seem to fit the above definition of a
police-state. The state determines unilaterally who is detrimental to
its interests. The state then represses that person or group.

By a 6-3 majority, the Supreme Court has explicitly stated that
Congress and/or the Executive is “uniquely positioned” to determine
who is a terrorist and who is not and therefore has the right to
silence not just the terrorist organization, but anyone trying to
speak to them, or hear them.

And let’s just say that, after jumping through years of judicial
hoops, one finally manages to prove that one wasn’t then and isn’t now
a terrorist, the Arar denial of certiorari makes it irrelevant. Even
if it turns out that a person is definitely and unequivocally not a
terrorist, he cannot get legal redress for this mistake by the state.

So! To sum up: The U.S. government can decide unilaterally who is a
terrorist organization and who is not. Anyone speaking to such a
designated terrorist group is “providing material support” to the
terrorists and is therefore subject to prosecution at the discretion
of the U.S. government. And if, in the end, it turns out that one
definitely was not involved in terrorist activities, there is no way
to receive redress by the state.

Sounds like a fascist police-state to me.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Scary Stuff

U.S. government panel now pushing “vaccinations for all!” No
exceptions
- David Gutierrez

An advisory panel to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) has recommended that every person be vaccinated for
the seasonal flu yearly, except in a few cases where the vaccine is
known to be unsafe.

“Now no one should say ‘Should I or shouldn’t I?’” said CDC flu
specialist Anthony Fiore.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 11-0 with one
abstention to recommend yearly flu vaccination for everyone except for
children under the age of six months, whose immune systems have not
yet developed enough for vaccination to be safe, and people with egg
allergies or other health conditions that are known to make flu
vaccines hazardous. If accepted by the CDC, this recommendation will
then be publicized to doctors and other health workers.

The CDC nearly always accepts the advisory committee’s
recommendations.

Current CDC recommendations call for the yearly vaccination of all
children over the age of six months, all adults over the age of 49,
health care workers, people with chronic health problems and anyone
who cares for a person in one of these groups. These recommendations
cover 85 percent of the US population.

Excluded are adults between the ages of 19 and 49 who do not come into
close contact with people in high-risk groups. The new
recommendation, if adopted, would close that gap, bringing an end to a
10-year campaign by supporters of universal vaccination.  In the past,
the advisory committee has been reluctant to recommend universal
vaccination for fear that it might produce vaccine shortages that
place members of higher risk groups in danger. Yet even with current
recommendations, only 33 percent of the public gets vaccinated every
year, leaving millions of doses to be disposed of.

The H1N1 swine flu scare of the past year played a major role in the
committee’s about face, both because the disease killed many people
falling outside the current recommended vaccine demographic and
because it raised public awareness of and demand for vaccines.

Sources for this story include: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** Breaking News!

Home Office admits thousands have been illegally stopped and searched
under counter-terror laws (and could get compensation
- Daily Mail

Thousands of people have been illegally stopped and searched under
counter-terrorism laws, the Home Office revealed today.

Officials are examining 40 cases where police forces across England
and Wales misapplied the Terrorism Act 2000.

The Home Office said paperwork blunders meant senior officers did not
get the correct authorisation to implement the law.

A series of errors have been identified in applications by forces,
including the Metropolitan Police and regional forces, between 2001
and 2008.

They include one in 2004 when the Metropolitan Police stopped 840
people even though they did not get authorisation from the Government
within 48 hours.

The mistakes centre on operations where stop and search powers under
section 44 of the Terrorism Act were used.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** Federal Suit Attacks Constitutionality of N.J. Money-Laundering
Statute
- New Jersey Law Journal

Two criminal defense lawyers are asking a federal court to declare
unconstitutional New Jersey’s money-laundering law, which they say
uniquely criminalizes the mere possession of U.S. currency.

Glenn Cavanagh and Jon-Henry Barr seek to enjoin the start of a state
court criminal trial set for June 11 in Middlesex County, arguing the
New Jersey statutes, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-25(a) and -26, are
unconstitutional and their clients face irreparable harm from the
20-year prison sentence they face if convicted.

The clients, Belarmino Amaya and Carlos Mejia, were charged with money
laundering and conspiracy to money launder after state police pulled
over their truck and found $1.24 million in two duffel bags. The
money and the vehicle were confiscated.

Money-laundering cases typically include a companion count charging
other criminal conduct, such as drug offenses, prostitution or fraud,
the lawyers say, but New Jersey’s statute is different. It
criminalizes transporting or possessing “property known or which a
reasonable person would believe to be derived from criminal activity.”

It also provides that such knowledge “may be inferred where the
property is transported or possessed in a fashion inconsistent with
the ordinary or usual means of transportation or possession of such
property and where the property is discovered in the absence of any
documentation or other indicia of legitimate origin or right to such
property.”

Cavanagh says the law makes it a crime to carry large amounts of cash.
“It’s almost like requiring a license to possess currency,” he says.
“If it’s legitimate to own, why do I have to prove where I got it and
why I’m authorized to possess it?”

The federal money-laundering law has no comparable inference of
knowledge language. It makes transporting money illegal if the intent
is “to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity” or with
knowledge that the funds represent the proceeds of crime and that
their transport is designed to “conceal or disguise the nature, the
location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of
specified unlawful activity” or transaction-reporting requirements.
Nor does any other state infer such knowledge, Cavanagh says, based on
research by two law student interns into laws around the country, the
results of which are attached to the lawyers’ motion for a temporary
restraining order, which is set to be argued June 7.

In opposing papers, Deputy Attorney General Jennifer Hsia says the
relief should be denied because Amaya and Mejia have not shown a
likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm. She also
argues it is against the public interest to interfere with the
prosecution of crime and urges the court to abstain under the doctrine
of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), so as not to interfere
with state court proceedings.

The complaint in Amaya v. State of New Jersey, 10-cv-915, filed in
Newark on Feb. 22, alleges that the money-laundering law violates the
First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and 14th Amendments. It asks for a
declaration that the law is unconstitutional, injunctive relief,
return of the cash and truck, compensatory damages of at least $1
million, punitive damages, interest, costs and fees. An amended
complaint filed May 6 added a third plaintiff, identified only as
R.H.K., allegedly a businessman who transports currency for a fee
based on a handshake and without documentation, sometimes in or
through New Jersey, which puts him at risk of money-laundering
charges.

The defendants, Attorney General Paula Dow, Deputy Attorney General
Philip Mogavero, who is prosecuting Amaya and Mejia, and the three
state police officers involved in the motor vehicle stop, all
represented by Hsia, have not yet filed an answer.

On April 5, the plaintiffs obtained an entry of default but U.S.
District Judge Dickinson Debevoise vacated it on May 3 on Hsia’s
motion and denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment.

In her motion, Hsia said the response to the complaint was delayed due
to confusion over whether which division of the attorney general’s
office should handle the matter. By the time it was assigned to Hsia
in the Division of Law, the time to answer had passed. Cavanaugh and
Barr would not consent to drop the default though they later withdrew
their opposition.

Cavanagh and Barr say the ACLU-NJ, Association of Criminal Defense
Lawyers-New Jersey and the Institute for Justice, a Virginia-based
property rights advocacy group, have expressed interest in coming in
as amici but have not committed to doing so.

Amaya was transporting the money from New Jersey to California for a
fee and was driving a truck owned by Mejia, who was with him, when
they were stopped by officers from the state police Drug Trafficking
North Unit, says Cavanagh, a Clark solo.

“I can’t get over that this statute says that unless you can explain
where and how you got this dough, that’s dirty money.”

Barr, of Barr & Canada in Clark, is the municipal prosecutor in that
town and in Kenilworth. He is also president of the municipal
prosecutors’ association.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Good News

Original ‘Echelon’ secret UK-US spookery treaty published
- Lewis Page

Old news in the world of surveillance and spookery today, as the
original 1946 secret treaty between the UK and US which set up the
famous “Echelon” listening system is finally published.

The UKUSA agreement, drafted to formalise intel-sharing arrangements
which had developed during World War II, formed the basis for the
US-British (and later, other nations) partnership against the Warsaw
Pact through the Cold War.

The treaty dealt primarily with communications intercept information,
known as signals intelligence or “sigint”. Back in the early days of
UKUSA cooperation, many long-distance or international phone calls
were carried by longhaul HF radio, and were comparatively easily
intercepted by a worldwide network of listening posts.

Later on, it is widely believed, the allied Echelon capabilities – by
now mostly being provided by the US, with useful access being supplied
by Britain and other nations – became able to monitor huge numbers of
calls automatically, with chosen key words or phrases flagging up a
given conversation for investigation by human operators.

Now released along with the Treaty itself are some intercept products
garnered up to the year 1949. The cooperative publication of British
files from GCHQ and other organisations has already occurred courtesy
of the National Archives, here. The American end of the publications
will go live on the NSA website at 3pm UK time today
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** Tips for the TSA
- Campaign For Liberty

US Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) both consider us nitwits who can’t pack a
suitcase or travel about the country, let alone the world, without
their supervision. And so after hopelessly mucking up travel with
such nonsense as the “Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative” and
“3-1-1,” they now “Provide Reminders and Travel Tips to Summer
Travelers.”  Yep, those are nouns you hear shrieking as bureaucrats
force them into adjectival stress positions.

Plenty more such screams rend the “reminders”: “Monitor border wait
times for various ports of entry.  .  .  .  During periods of heavy
travel, border crossers may wish to consider alternative, less heavily
traveled entry routes” and “Passengers can help speed up the screening
process [sic for 'warrantless search'] by packing their carry-ons in
an organized manner. This helps our officers [sic for 'busybodies']
efficiently see what’s inside to quickly process it through screening
[sic for 'warrantless search'].” Forget about making things easier on
yourself by choosing the “port of entry” closest to your destination
or by packing in the “manner” you prefer, however disorganized: a serf
labors to ease his masters’ burdens, not his own.

Indeed, “reminding” us to do so has become something of a semi-annual
tradition for the TSA.  You might think an agency this hated would
learn some humility and seek rather than give advice.  But no.

Nonetheless, I forge ahead and modestly offer my recommendations to
Our high-flying Rulers:

1) Disband. Really. It’s the only sensible move after screeners
advised the world that they lack cojones, and took the pictures to
prove it. I mean, guys, c’mon, we’re all laughing at you. Hard.

2) Disband. Immediately. Before every last one of you winds up in
prison. You can’t keep stealing $24,000 watches with impunity
forever. Even Al Capone eventually ran out of luck.

3) Disband. For the good of the country, sorry, “homeland.” Because
everyone knows you lack brains as well as that other b-word. Look,
there used to be “dumb blonde/stewardess” excuse me, “flight
attendant” jokes for a reason. But now you dingbats take those
dingbats seriously.

Case in point: when one of United’s stews smelled a “‘pungent chemical
odor’ coming from a bag on board” while taxiing for take-off at San
Francisco International, you morons overreacted as usual rather than
considering the source. She (NB: the article reporting this absurdity
doesn’t mention the stew’s sex, but when was the last time a real man
fussed that a carry-on was, like, way too big for the overhead bin?
“She” goes for most of what works the aisles these days) immediately
thought, “Terrorists!” instead of “Hmmm. I’m not real bright, or I’d
be doing something besides handing out pretzels for a living. It’s
likely that pungent odor emanates from a substance well beyond my
limited outlook and experience. Perhaps it’s just Chinese herbs, and
since the elderly couple to whom it belongs doesn’t speak much
English, I’m going to show some startlingly good sense in these goofy
times and silly ‘profession’ by keeping my mouth shut. Plus, if I
open said orifice, I’ll remove all doubt about my regrettable and
inherent foolishness.”

Yeah, I’m dreaming. And so this arrogant airhead tattled to the
pilot. He (also unspecified, but I’m going with “he” to distinguish
him from our tattler) “receiv[ed] the bag” [sic for "accepted stolen
property after the stew pilfered it from the couple"] and “notified
local authorities.”

No surprise at what happened next: “passengers deplaned and were taken
by bus back to the airport, where they were rescreened [sic for
"searched for the second time that day without a warrant"] by
Transportation Security Administration agents.”  Good job, there, TSA:
we all know how sneaky those elderly couples can be, handing out
Chinese herbs willy-nilly that improve our circulation, clear our
skin, and in general promote good health. “TSA dogs searched the
plane with the help of hazardous materials and explosives teams from
the San Francisco Fire Department.” This delayed a flight that had
been about to depart by six hours. Alas, “Police do not expect to
file charges against anyone” despite the criminal stupidity of the
stew, you buffoons at the TSA, and “local authorities.”

4) Disband. Now. Before your sour grapes ferment and explode in your
face.

Like most of your victims, Mrs. Hays is an exemplary person without
any criminal record or intent. Unlike many of them, she actually
deciphered your silly rules and packed a cooler with snacks you allow
for her 93-year-old, infirm mother, a “[Traveler] with Disabilities
and Medical Conditions”   when transporting her cross-country.

No matter: screeners tried to steal, sorry, confiscate her cooler.
With her mother’s welfare at stake, Mrs. Hays protested rather than
bow her head and murmur, “Yes, your majesties.” That landed her in
jail: the screeners’ version of events had her punching one of them.

Unfortunately for the screeners, the checkpoint’s surveillance camera
sided with Mrs. Hays, and the judge was less creative than others who
believe your goons over passengers regardless of the facts. He was
content to lecture and reprimand Mrs. Hays, not the screeners who
lied, rather than imprison her. He’ll also dismiss the charges if
she “stays out of trouble” for six months. And a good thing, too:
ladies in their 50’s who tenderly care for aging mothers start so many
crime-waves these days.

This episode doesn’t exactly show you wingdings in a favorable light.
The surveillance camera not only proves your employees lie, and that
you fully support their mendacity, it also records their brutality
as they laugh at Mrs. Hays’ distress. So we might suppose you’d slink
away from your defeat here, hoping we’d soon forget, fearful of more
adverse publicity.  Au contraire. The inmates of police states and
their opinions do not chasten the wardens. So now you’re suing Mrs.
Hays for $2500. Here’s hoping she counter-sues your missing cojones
right off you. But whatever the outcome, remember: nobody likes a
sore loser.

My fifth and final tip is for Congress: abolish the TSA. Then take a
recess yourselves, and don’t come back.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Bad News

Smart meters – the latest example of Britain leading the world in
invasive technology
- Alex Deane

We’ve written before about the privacy implications of Smart Meters,
both here and abroad. This story over at the Washington Post begins:

Cambridge, England – Wary homeowners could scupper the rollout of
smart technologies meant to boost energy efficiency, without secure
controls over data and access to appliances, executives said this
week.

Great. yet another technological debate in which the rest of the
world looks to the UK as the pilot for the most intrusive equipment
around.

“Home meters” allow two-way wireless communication with utilities – to
forecast demand and charge more at peak times and even switch off
individual appliances remotely.

Rollout is at an early stage but speeding up, and Britain’s providers
plan a nationwide deployment. The data-gathering power of meters has
prompted comparisons with “spies” in people’s homes. And not just
from privacy advocates, but from the companies themselves:

“We, Siemens, have the technology to record it (energy consumption)
every minute, second, microsecond, more or less live,” said Martin
Pollock of Siemens Energy, an arm of the German engineering giant,
which provides metering services.

“From that we can infer how many people are in the house, what they
do, whether they’re upstairs, downstairs, do you have a dog, when do
you habitually get up, when did you get up this morning, when do you
have a shower: masses of private data.”

“We think the regulator needs to send a strong signal to say that the
data belongs to consumers and consumers alone. We believe that’s a
blocker to people adopting the technology,” he told the Smart Grids
and Cleanpower conference in Cambridge.

There are of course potential benefits for consumers, such as the
ability to program individual appliances to switch on when power is
cheaper. On the other hand, the technology allows utilities to bully
customers to turn on washing machines or charge electric cars at
night, for example, by charging more at peak times.

Energy companies’ new ability to switch off appliances remotely is
also open to abuse:

“There’ll be a lot of resistance to being told by your utility when
you can do your washing,” said Chris Wright, chief technology officer
at Moixa Technology. Consumer agreements may focus on utilities
controlling only particular appliances such as freezers, air
conditioners or luxury items such as swimming pools.

Why on earth should we allow a change in the status quo, from being
responsible for our own lives to having to negotiate with energy
companies about which bits of our households they can’t micromanage?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** Crocodile Dundee Paul Hogan’s off-shore tax accounts to be
published Paul Hogan, the Australian actor, has lost a long-running
legal battle to keep the contents of his tax documents secret, paving
the way for details of his offshore accounts to be published.
- Daily Telegraph

Hogan, 70, has been engaged in a five year-long fight with the
Australian Crime Commission (ACC) to keep the dossier containing his
offshore financial dealings under wraps.

Hogan has argued that the documents are confidential, but the ACC
wants access to them so that it can finalise a case against Hogan,
film producer John Cornell and their accountant, whom it suspects of
channelling millions of dollars from the proceeds of Crocodile Dundee
and other films into offshore tax havens.

However, Hogan, once an embodiment of the laid-back Australian
“larrikin”, has not been charged with any crime and maintains he has
done nothing wrong.

In a 2008 interview with Network Ten, Hogan said he had “paid plenty
of tax”.

Mr Cornell and the accountant also deny any wrongdoing.

The legal action began in 2005, when the ACC ordered Hogan’s
accountants to hand over several documents relating to his tax
affairs, effectively alleging that he was involved in tax evasion
schemes. The commission argued that the documents were either “made
in the furtherance of a crime or fraud” or are “evidence of” a crime
or fraud.

At Hogan’s request, publication of the documents was restricted by the
federal court, but the ruling was challenged by the country’s largest
newspapers in 2008.

Hogan appealed again, arguing that the documents were confidential and
that publication could cause him harm or damage.

He took his objection all the way to Australia’s high court, which on
Wednesday dismissed the appeal.

Earlier this year, Australian media reported that ACC was in the final
stages of preparing to lay criminal charges of tax evasion against the
three men.

The release of the documents is expected to help finalise their case.

Hogan gained international fame through his role as Mick “Crocodile”
Dundee in the 1986 film. The production went on to become the most
successful Australian film of all time and earned Hogan a Golden Globe
for best actor.

He married his Dundee co-star Linda Kozlowski in 1990 and the couple
moved to California.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Food for thought

Is Someone Spying On Your Cell-Phone Calls?
- Newsweek

How suspicious spouses, protective parents, and concerned companies
are turning to cheap and hard-to-detect commercial spyware apps to
monitor your mobile communications.

Sometime in early 2007, Richard Mislan, an assistant professor of
cyberforensics at Purdue University, started getting phone calls and
e-mails from people around the world all looking for help with the
same problem. “They thought someone was listening in on their
cell-phone calls,” he says. “They wanted to know what they could do
to confirm it was happening.” Mislan, who has examined thousands of
phones at the Purdue Cyber Forensics Lab, politely disregarded some
callers as a little paranoid. Others, he thought, had reason to be
concerned. A decade ago the idea that anyone with little technical
skill could turn a cell phone into a snooping device was basically
unrealistic. But as the smart-phone market proliferates it grew 86
percent in the United States alone last year so do all the ethical
kinks that come with it. Among them is a growing sector of perfectly
legal smart-phone spyware apps that are peddled as tools for catching
a cheating spouse or monitoring the kids when they’re away from home.
But what they can effectively do, for as little as $15 or as much as
several hundred, is track a person with a precision once relegated to
federal authorities. “Not only can you look at a person’s e-mail or
listen to their calls, in some cases you can also just turn on the
microphone [on a smart phone] and listen to what the person is doing
any time you want,” says Chris Wysopal, cofounder and CTO of Veracode,
a software-security company.

Turning what is essentially cell-phone-bugging software into a
business model is not a bad idea, technically speaking. The
smart-phone market largely dominated by the Symbian, Research in
Motion, and iPhone operating systems has 47 million users in the
United States and is expected to exceed 1 billion worldwide by 2014,
according to Parks Associates, a market-research firm. In most cases,
people’s lives are tethered to these handsets. It’s how we e-mail,
text, search, and, on occasion, even call someone. And the dependence
just continues to grow. Last year consumers paid for and downloaded
more than 670 million apps that can turn a phone into everything from
a book reader to a compass. Smart-phone users effectively carry a
real-time snapshot of what happens in their daily lives. This is what
makes the smart phone the perfect way to track someone.

Among the top commercial spyware vendors who have ventured into this
space are FlexiSPY, MobiStealth, and Mobile Spy. While the services
vary, what they do is essentially the same. According to all three
spyware Web sites, a person must have legal access to a smart phone to
install a piece of spyware. For example, if you’re spying on a family
member, that means the phone is family property. If you’re an
employer monitoring your employee, the phone should be company-owned.
To install the spyware, you have to have the phone in your possession
for at least a few minutes to download the app. (There are apps that
can be downloaded remotely, but that’s less common and not legal.) In
Mobile Spy’s case, once the software is installed, you can log into
your Mobile Spy web account to view e-mails, text messages, pictures
taken, videos shot, calendar entries, incoming and outgoing calls, and
GPS coordinates. MobiStealth and FlexiSPY take it a step further and
allow a person to remotely record any conversations that take place
near the cell phone. “The most threatening [part] is that it’s pretty
impossible to tell if this is happening to you,” says Mislan. That’s
because once the spyware app is on the phone it is virtually
undetectable to the average user. There is no typical corresponding
app icon, nor is it listed on any menu.  At best, it may show up with
a generic name like “iPhone app” or “BlackBerry app,” so that it
appears to be a regular part of the system.

There is nothing illegal about making these apps, and almost all
makers have disclaimers on their Web sites warning people not to use
their products illegally.  ”Our software is for very specific uses,”
says Craig Thompson, support coordinator of Retina-X Studios, the
creator of Mobile Spy.  ”We do what we can to discourage
innappropriate use.”  Still, there is no way to know if someone is
using the app to monitor his or her child (legal) or stalk an ex (not
so much). Illegal use of spyware has already been reported in states
such as Washington, Oklahoma, and Texas. According to Wysopal of
Veracode, in addition to state and local laws, the federal Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act and the Wiretap Act technically offer some
protection for consumers. But even if someone discovers spyware on
their phone, prosecuting the perpetrator can be difficult. “The
problem with this law is the crime has to rise to the level of a
felony for the FBI to investigate, [and] that typically involves
$5,000 or more in damages,” Wysopal says. “I don’t really know what
the damages are for someone installing [mobile spyware] and reading
your e-mails.”

Jeff Troy, acting deputy assistant director for the FBI’s Cyber
Division, says the issue is a growing concern for his organization
because of how fast the smart-phone market is evolving. “I do think
there is need for additional cyber laws to address this,” he says.

Until that happens, the best solution may well be preventive.
According to BlackBerry maker Research in Motion, “BlackBerry
smartphones include a firewall that can be set to prevent an app (like
spyware) from making external connections; and passwords can also be
required to authorize downloading an application to the device.”
Google’s Android gives apps limited access to phone resources by
default, but that can be changed manually, so the best bet is to lock
the phone and/or SIM card whenever you’re not using it. Google has
also recently activated a “kill switch” on its phone to remotely
disable apps “that violate the Android Market Developer Distribution
Agreement or other legal agreements, laws, regulations or policies.”
Of the trio, Apple probably has the most user-friendly safety net,
because all apps must be approved by its app store. To even get most
spyware apps on an Apple iPhone, a person would have to jailbreak it,
which voids the warranty.

If the software is already on a phone, Mislan says there is little
that consumers can do on their own to confirm this. Even if you’re
positive you are being spied on, doing something like replacing the
SIM card is not always enough to wipe a phone clean of the problem.
In some cases, Mislan advises consumers to reach out to companies like
SMobile Systems that offer security solutions for cell phones a
growing market in themselves.

Wysopal says that as with so much that’s technology-related, something
big has to break before things change in the smart phone spyware
space. “You’ll have to see someone important, like a politician, have
their phone compromised,” he says. “If that happened, it would be a
wake-up call.”

Shamrock’s comment: Time for an offshore anonymous mobile? Check out
our cacophony of anonymous mobiles and sim chips at
http://www.ptshamrock.com/auto/anon_phone.htm
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** Police State

Toronto Transformed Into Locked Down Police State

Sweeping police powers with no limits, military style checkpoints,
LRAD sound cannons, huge makeshift prisons and a taxpayer bill of $1
billion
- Steve Watson

The Toronto Star Reports

“The regulation was made under Ontario’s Public Works Protection Act
and was not debated in the Legislature. According to a provincial
spokesperson, the cabinet action came in response to an ‘extraordinary
request’ by Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair, who wanted additional
policing powers shortly after learning the G20 was coming to Toronto.”

The regulation gives the police authority to question anybody entering
the restricted zone from June 14 until June 28, the day after the
summits are scheduled to end. As Adam Radwanski of The Globe and Mail
reports, there are no limits to police powers during the summit, and
no clear legal precedent specifying what they can and can’t do.

CTV.ca reports that there has been an increase in tension in the
security zone as police are stopping and searching hundreds of
protesters. “If you’re in that zone you’re going to be challenged,”
Const. Tim Garland, spokesperson for the Integrated Security Unit
told CTV.ca.

Some reports even detail incidents of police randomly stopping people
outside the security perimeters who are not even protesters and are
merely going about their business.

As our earlier report detailed, Charlie Veitch of the popular London
based activist group The Love Police was arrested yesterday in Toronto
under the new extraordinary powers for refusing to identify himself.

Police have been preparing for the lockdown for months now. An
unprecedented show of force will see up to 20,000 uniformed officers,
along with a 1,000 private security guards deployed, as well as
Canadian military forces. The security costs are expected to cost the
Canadian government (taxpayers) hundreds of millions of dollars, with
some estimating the bill will stretch beyond one billion dollars.

Security measures include two large perimeters, walled in with huge 3
meter high fences, with Toronto police in charge of the outer zone and
the RCMP in charge of the inner zone. Anyone entering the inner
perimeter, where the Metro Convention Centre is located, will be
processed through five levels of airport style security screening.

Various checkpoints throughout Toronto have been outfitted with
“Magnetometers,” “walk-through metal detectors,” “X-Ray belt driven
scanners” and “hand-held metal detectors.”

Residents and workers in the area have been made to register with the
authorities to get access to their homes and businesses during the
meeting.

The Canadian Forces plans are described as “large-scale operational
planning, land and air surveillance, underwater safety and security
for the venues and some logistic and ceremonial functions. Support
also includes drawing on the CF’s ongoing partnership in the North
American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD).”

Protesters will also be subject to designated free speech zones. If
they breach these zones they will be forced to move or be arrested.

Police will be using a massive movie studio as a temporary jail. The
building is roughly five kilometres from the Convention Centre,
outside the two security zones.  The plan echoes tactics employed in
the U.S.  at recent DNC and RNC Conventions, where thousands of
protesters were indiscriminately rounded up and kept for up to several
hours in temporary prisons.

Police have also been cleared to employ Long Range Acoustic Devices
otherwise known as sound cannons.

Civil liberties advocates and activists had requested that a court
impose an injunction to prevent police from using the ear-piercing
devices, which were used by police and the National Guard to break up
protests at last year’s meeting in Pittsburgh.

However, the Ontario Superior Court ruled that the devices could be
used after police argued they were essential equipment.

In related news, Infowars reporter Luke Rudkowski and fellow activists
have been denied access into Canada altogether.

In a telephone interview with Infowars.com, Luke said he was detained
for nearly five hours by Homeland Security and Canadian Customs police
on the border in Buffalo, New York. Agents went through his car and
laptop looking for anything to arrest and detain the activists. After
the Canadians denied Luke, Kelly, and Matt entry into the country,
Homeland Security on the American side of the border questioned them
once again.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Horror Stories

Police Said to Taze Grandmother
- Tim Hull

CN – Police Tasered an 86-year-old disabled grandma in her bed and
stepped on her oxygen hose until she couldn’t breathe, after her
grandson called 911 seeking medical assistance, the woman and her
grandson claim in Oklahoma City Federal Court. Though the grandson
said, “Don’t Taze my granny!” an El Reno police officer told another
cop to “Taser her!” and wrote in his police report that he did so
because the old woman “took a more aggressive posture in her bed,”
according to the complaint.

Lonnie Tinsley claims that he called 911 after he went to check on his
grandmother, whom he found in her bed, “connected to a portable oxygen
concentrator with a long hose.” She is “in marginal health, [and]
takes several prescribed medications daily,” and “was unable to tell
him exactly when she had taken her meds,” so, Tinsley says, he called
911 “to ask for an emergency medical technician to come to her
apartment to evaluate her.”

In response, “as many as ten El Reno police” officers “pushed their
way through the door,” according to the complaint. The grandma, Lona
Varner, “told them to get out of her apartment.”

The remarkable complaint continues: “Instead, the apparent leader of
the police [defendant Thomas Duran] instructed another policeman to
‘Taser her!’ He stated in his report that the 86 year-old plaintiff
‘took a more aggressive posture in her bed,’ and that he was fearful
for his safety and the safety of others.

“Lonnie Tinsley told them, ‘Don’t taze my Granny!’ to which they
responded that they would Taser him; instead, they pulled him out of
her apartment, took him down to the floor, handcuffed him and placed
him in the back of a police car.

“The police then proceeded to approach Ms. Varner in her bed and
stepped on her oxygen hose until she began to suffer oxygen
deprivation.

“The police then fired a Taser at her and only one wire struck her, in
the left arm; the police then fired a second Taser, striking her to
the right and left of the midline of her upper chest and applied high
voltage, causing burns to her chest, extreme pain and to pass out.

“The police then grabbed Ms. Varner by her forearms and jerked hands
together, causing her soft flesh to tear and bleed on her bed; they
then handcuffed her.

“The police freed Lonnie Tinsley from his incarceration in the back of
the police car and permitted him to accompany the ambulance with his
grandmother.”

Tinsley says the cops capped it all off by having his grandmother
“placed in the psychiatric ward at the direction of the El Reno
police; she was held there for six days and released.”

“As a result of the wrongful arrest and detention, the plaintiff Lona
M. Varner suffered the unlawful restraint of her freedom, bodily
injury, assault, battery, the trashing of her apartment, humiliation,
loss of personal dignity, infliction of emotional distress and medical
bills.”

They seek punitive damages for constitutional violations, from the
City of El Reno, Duran, Officers Frank Tinga and Joseph Sandberg, and
10 Officers Does.

They are represented by Brian Dell of Oklahoma City.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** The District of Criminals

Pentagon revives Rumsfeld-era domestic spying unit
- Daniel Tencer

Pentagon revives Rumsfeld era domestic spying unit]

The Pentagon’s spy unit has quietly begun to rebuild a database for
tracking potential terrorist threats that was shut down after it
emerged that it had been collecting information on American anti-war
activists.

The Defense Intelligence Agency filed notice this week that it plans
to create a new section called Foreign Intelligence and
Counterintelligence Operation Records, whose purpose will be to
“document intelligence, counterintelligence, counterterrorism and
counternarcotic operations relating to the protection of national
security.”

But while the unit’s name refers to “foreign intelligence,” civil
liberties advocates and the Pentagon’s own description of the program
suggest that Americans will likely be included in the new database.

FICOR replaces a program called Talon, which the DIA created in 2002
under then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as part of the
counterterrorism efforts following the 9/11 attacks. It was disbanded
in 2007 after it emerged that Talon had retained information on
anti-war protesters, including Quakers, even after it was determined
they posed no threat to national security.

DIA spokesman Donald Black told Newsweek that the new database would
not include the more controversial elements of the old Talon program.
But Jeff Stein at the Washington Post reports that the new program
will evidently inherit the old Talon database.

“Why the new depository would want such records while its parent
agency no longer has a law enforcement function could not be learned,”
Stein reports. “Nor could it be learned whether the repository will
include intelligence reports on protest groups gathered by its
predecessor.”

The Pentagon’s notice states that the database will collect
“identifying information such as name, Social Security Number (SSN),
address, citizenship documentation, biometric data, passport number,
vehicle identification number and vehicle/vessel license data.” As
only US residents have Social Security Numbers, it appears the program
is being designed at least partly to contain domestic information.

Newsweek cites two unnamed US officials as suggesting that the new
program essentially echoes the old one. When CIFA, the DIA division
running Talon, was disbanded in 2008, “many of its personnel and some
of its functions were transferred” to the new DIA unit running the new
database program. The new program will be housed “in the same office
space that CIFA once occupied, in a complex near suburban Washington’s
Reagan National Airport.”

Mike German, a former FBI agent now working with the ACLU, says
“Americans should be just as concerned” about the new database as the
previous one under the Bush administration.

“It’s a little hard to tell what this is exactly, but we do know that
DIA took over ‘offensive counterintelligence’ for the DoD once CIFA
was abandoned,” he told the Post’s Stein. “It therefore makes sense
that this new DIA database would be collecting the same types of
information that CIFA collected improperly.”
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** The Coalition continues with 28 day detention
- Big Brother Watch.org

We had our first bad news under the Coalition a little while ago.
Now, we’ve had some more.

Theresa May has announced that the rules which allow the police to
detain suspects for 28 days without charge are to remain in force for
at least another six months. Both parties in the Coalition have
indicated that they think that the limit, which is the longest in the
developed world, is too high. But still it’s going to continue.

Extending detention without charge went against the grain of our
country’s traditions of fairness under the law.  I am afraid that
continuing the policy suggests that the government’s promise to
safeguard rights and liberties is hollow.

I mean – wasn’t this government supposed to be different from the last
lot? And isn’t the civil liberties agenda supposed to be the rallying
cry of the Coalition, as it’s one of the things on which the
constituent parts agree?

The record of prosecutions shows that this power has done nothing to
advance the fight against terrorism. All it does is damage the very
values of democratic freedom that terrorists hate.

After all, Dominic Raab MP’s excellent book The Assault on Liberty
makes it clear that there have been but five people detained up to the
28 day mark since this draconian power was introduced. Three were
released without charge (which means that each of those cases was
obviously a disgrace). The last two were charged, but the
Metropolitan Police reported that the information needed to charge
them emerged at the four and twelve day mark respectively. So even on
the authoritarians’ terms, they can at least reduce the term in
question substantially based on the evidence, even without recourse to
the principled argument they don’t seem to want to have.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Hot Tips

Funds Invest in Privacy Start-Ups Companies With Ideas on How to
Protect Personal Information Are a New Favorite of Venture Capitalists
- Pui-Wing Tam and Ben Worthen

As privacy snafus mount across companies such as Facebook Inc. and
AT&T Inc., venture capitalists have spotted a new market opening and
are pumping millions of dollars into privacy-related start-ups.

This month, online privacy start-up ReputationDefender Inc. plans to
disclose that it has raised $15 million in new venture funding even
though the company wasn’t actively looking for new cash. SafetyWeb
Inc., which helps parents monitor their kids’ online activities, said
Thursday it closed $8 million in funding. And Truste, which offers
seals of approval to websites that meet certain privacy standards,
raised $12 million earlier this month.

Many of the investors include top-tier venture-capital firms such as
Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Accel Partners. Venture firms
such as Jafco Ventures, Atlas Venture and Battery Ventures also have
invested in online-privacy start-ups in the past few months.

As privacy snafus mount across companies such as Facebook and AT&T
venture capitalists have spotted a new market opening and are pumping
millions of dollars into privacy-related start-ups. Ben Worthen
explains.

“There are at least a dozen [online privacy companies] now in various
stages of making the rounds in the venture world,” said Theresia Gouw
Ranzetta, a venture capitalist at Accel, which backed Truste and is
also a major investor in Facebook. “We’re actively looking for more
[privacy] deals.”

The jump in privacy-related investments underscores how ways to
protect privacy on the Web and on mobile gadgets is increasingly
viewed as a real business. That’s a shift from a few years ago, when
companies struggled to sell such services, said Carsten Casper, an
analyst at researcher Gartner. Among those that crashed earlier this
decade was start-up Privacy Inc., which offered dummy email addresses
for online purchases.

But in the wake of recent privacy flaps involving AT&T, Facebook,
Apple Inc.  and others, consumer awareness has grown.  ”Privacy is a
big issue and it’s going to get bigger because people realize it can
be used against you,” said Ted Schlein, a venture capitalist at
Kleiner Perkins and a ReputationDefender board member. “That spells
market opportunity.”

Many venture capitalists liken today’s privacy market to the
technology-security market a decade ago, when companies such as
Barracuda Networks Inc.  were searching for solutions to deal with
viruses and hacking.  Security has since become one of tech’s hottest
markets, with businesses increasing their security spending by 10% to
$33.8 billion world-wide in 2009, even as total tech spending fell 9%
to $1.5 trillion for the year, according to Forrester Research.

Yet despite the surge of privacy investments, venture capitalists and
start-ups still face a challenge in getting people to pay for
confidentiality and discretion,, say analysts. A recent study by
think tank Ponemon Institute LLC found that identity theft victims
still don’t behave differently online from others on social networking
sites such as Facebook. Only 13% of the general public and 19% of
identity theft victims said they are responsible for protecting their
own privacy on social-media sites, according to the study.

Investors acknowledge the privacy market is nascent and will evolve as
regulations are introduced.  Still, the venture investments are an
early look at the solutions emerging to help combat privacy
incursions.

Some of the recently funded start-ups are aimed at giving consumers
tools to defend their privacy. ReputationDefender, which launched in
2006, provides a service that costs between $10 a month and $1,000
annually to monitor what is said about an individual online.  Its
tools can help remove private information from certain websites.

SafetyWeb, funded by Battery Ventures, and SocialShield Inc., funded
by Venrock Associates and others, have launched websites that parents
can use to help them track and analyze their children’s online
behavior. The services tell parents when others have posted and
tagged photos of their kids online, giving them a chance to have them
removed, among other thing.

Abine Inc., funded by Atlas Venture, this month launched a product
that can block online tracking and opt out of online ad networks.

Truste, which until 2008 was a nonprofit, works primarily with
corporations that want their websites certified as having met certain
privacy standards.

Executives involved in privacy start-ups say the interest by venture
capitalists has become intense. Michael Fertik, chief executive of
ReputationDefender, said more than 20 venture firms expressed interest
in investing even though the Redwood City, Calif., company wasn’t
intending to raise new cash until late this year, he said.

In the end, Mr. Fertik took $15 million from Jafco and existing
investors’ Kleiner Perkins and Bessemer. “It ended up being a
competitive situation,” he said.

He attributes the interest partly to “everyone’s being analyzed and
digitized online.”
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** Advisory Financial Crimes Enforcement Network Advisory

Newly Released Mexican Regulations Imposing Restrictions on Mexican
Banks for Transactions in U.S. Currency

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) is advising U.S.
financial institutions of a recent change in Mexican financial
regulations applying to Mexican banks that could affect the operations
of U.S. financial institutions. On June 15, 2010 the Mexican finance
ministry, Secretar a de Hacienda y Cr dito P blico de M xico (SHCP),
announced new anti-money laundering (AML) regulations that will
restrict the amounts of physical cash (banknotes and coins)
denominated in U.S. dollars that Mexican banks may receive.1 The
Mexican regulation will still allow certain transactions up to
relatively low value thresholds, as described in more detail below.
The regulations do not restrict non-cash transactions denominated in
U.S. currency (e.g., wire transfers, ACH payments, credit card
transactions, traveler’s checks, etc.). These new Mexican regulations
are intended to mitigate risks of laundering proceeds of crime tied to
narcotics trafficking and organized crime.  The regulations state that
the restrictions on U.S. currency transactions by banks with
individuals will go into effect four business days after official
publication on June 16, 2010. The restrictions on U.S. currency
transactions by banks with legal entities and trusts will go into
effect ninety (90) calendar days after official publication (on or
about September 14, 2010).2

This Advisory is issued to assist financial institutions in
understanding how the U.S financial system may be affected by the
changes in the Mexican regulations, to help U.S.  financial
institutions anticipate possible impacts on their businesses,
including the risk profiles of certain classes of transactions and
customers, and how various AML and counter-terrorist financing
safeguards consistent with Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) regulations may be
utilized to mitigate possible changes or increases in risks.

Background The United States and Mexico maintain strong commercial and
cultural ties, particularly evident around our shared border. There
are many legitimate reasons that U.S.  currency enters the Mexican
economy, including in connection with border trade, tourism, and
remittances.3 Nonetheless, a significant portion of the U.S.  currency
in Mexico is derived from illegal activity, specifically the sale of
narcotics in the United States, some of the proceeds of which are
smuggled as bulk cash into Mexico.4 Within Mexico, much of the U.S.
currency, regardless of source, is intermediated through multiple
transactions and ultimately make its way into the global financial
system and repatriated back to the United States (in a process similar
to that in most countries with respect to the processing of non-local
currency).

FinCEN and U.S. financial regulators have previously taken steps
aimed at raising awareness of the risks involved in the bulk shipment
of cash between the United States and Mexico. In 2006, FinCEN issued
guidance on the potential misuse of relationships with U.S.  financial
institutions by certain Mexican financial institutions, including
Mexican casas de cambio, and the money laundering threat involving the
smuggling of bulk U.S. currency into Mexico.5 More recently, on April
29, 2010, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council
(FFIEC) released the revised Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering
(BSA/AML) Examination Manual,6 which included a new section providing
guidance to banks on managing the risks associated with receiving bulk
shipments of currency and implementing effective monitoring and
reporting systems addressed to those risks. Although the FFIEC
BSA/AML Examination Manual is issued by the Federal banking regulators
regarding AML requirements applicable to banks, it contains guidance
that may be of interest to all financial institutions covered by the
BSA.

Summary of New Mexican Regulation The SHCP has issued the new
regulations, in consultation with the Mexican financial supervisor,
the Comisi n Nacional Bancaria y de Valores, pursuant to Article 1157
of the Mexican Law of Credit Institutions, to be included among other
AML requirements for banks issued pursuant to article 115. (See
Annexes for a copy of the new regulations as issued, and an unofficial
translation into English.) The regulations provide that Mexican banks
shall be prohibited from receiving U.S. currency for transactions
involving currency exchange, and for receipt of payment for services,
or transfers or remittances of funds, subject to the following
conditions: * For legal entities (in Spanish “personas morales”) and
trusts that are customers, U.S.  currency transactions will be
prohibited, unless such customer is based or conducts most of its
business within a tourist area (to be identified by SHCP at a later
date), within twenty miles of the U.S.  border, or within the States
of Baja California or South Baja California; in which cases the bank
may receive an aggregate limit of $7000 in U.S. currency from its
customer per calendar month. * For legal entities and trusts that are
non-customers, all U.S.  currency transactions will be prohibited.
* For individuals who are customers, the aggregate limit in U.S.
currency that the bank may receive from its customer per calendar
month shall be $4000. * For individuals who are non-customers, the
aggregate limits in U.S. currency that the bank may receive from the
individual shall be $300 per day, and $1500 per month. Only the
monthly threshold of $1500 per person will apply to non-Mexicans
(e.g., foreign tourists); the daily threshold will not apply. For all
transactions for individuals who are non-customers, the Bank will be
required to receive certain identification information from the
transacting person.

Guidance The change in Mexican regulations could have a significant
impact on the operations of U.S.  financial institutions, both
directly with respect to the nature of activity and relationships with
Mexican customers and financial institutions, and indirectly with
respect to possible changes in activity both within the United States
and through intermediary countries.  Financial institutions are
advised that some changes in transaction activity should be expected
in advance of the effective date of the Mexican regulations. In
addition, U.S. financial institutions should be aware that some
Mexican banks have already implemented restrictions on accepting
foreign currency. The end of this Advisory includes examples of
possible changes in activity. These examples are by no means certain
nor exclusive, but rather are illustrative and are being shared
through this Advisory for the purpose of aiding U.S. financial
institutions in developing assessments based upon their unique
customer and business profiles.

Financial institutions should consider the possible impact of the
restrictions when reviewing financial activity and monitoring
transactions. The changes to the Mexican regulations could lead some
customers to seek new relationships with U.S. financial institutions.
Financial institutions are reminded of their requirement to have a
Customer Identification Program, as applicable, as well as an AML
Program to detect suspicious activity. Financial institutions that
receive or offer services in connection with bulk cash shipments
should have policies and procedures that mitigate the risks of those
services.

While the transactional activity that U.S. financial institutions may
experience as a result of the new Mexican restrictions may not be
indicative of criminal activity, U.S. financial institutions should
consider this activity in conjunction with other information,
including transaction volumes and source of funds, when determining
whether to file a suspicious activity report (SAR).9 Financial
institutions’ requirements to report suspicious activity are
significant, because SARs continue to be one of the most valuable
sources of data for law enforcement and regulatory agencies in their
investigation and prosecution of criminal activity.

Suspicious Activity Reporting To assist FinCEN and law enforcement
with efforts to better assess the impact of the changes in the Mexican
regulations, particularly with respect to possible attempts by
criminals to divert or alter their methods of laundering the proceeds
of crime, we request that: (a) if a financial institution has
determined that a transaction is suspicious and thus has an obligation
to file a SAR with FinCEN; and (b) if the facts and circumstances of
the transaction lead the financial institution to suspect that the
transaction is being entered into as a result of the Mexican currency
restrictions, then the financial institution should include the
specific term “MX Restriction” within the narrative portion of the SAR
filing and highlight the exact dollar amount(s) associated with the
suspicious activity. We further request the Suspect/Subject
Information Section in the SAR filing include all information
available for each party suspected of engaging in this activity
(including the individual or company name, address, phone number, and
any other identifying information). With respect to currency
shipments from Mexico that are deemed suspicious, include information
on the common carrier, courier, or shipper of the currency, and
information on the point of exportation of the currency from Mexico
and the point of importation in the United States, if known.

FinCEN will continue to analyze U.S. currency flows between Mexico
and the United States to better understand legitimate, as distinct
from possible criminal, activity, and to aid in the detection,
deterrence, investigation and prosecution of criminal activity.
Future updates to this Advisory may be published as more specific
information as to the effects of the new Mexican regulations become
available.

Examples of Potential Activity The new restrictions implemented by
Mexico may have both direct and indirect effects on transactions
occurring in the United States. Financial institutions may find the
following examples of possible effects helpful in assessing risks and
in ongoing monitoring of financial transactions. * As the
restrictions on Mexican bank activity with respect to U.S. currency
is announced and goes into effect, it can be expected that the overall
amount of U.S.  currency repatriated by Mexican banks to the United
States will decline, with a possible further consolidation of the
Mexican entities seeking currency repatriation services. Prior to the
effective date of the restrictions, there could be an increase in
activity as pre-existing currency holdings of banks and their
customers are drawn down. * Individuals and businesses no longer able
to deposit U.S. currency into Mexican banks may instead look directly
to U.S.  financial institutions to deposit U.S. currency. * Within
the United States, financial institutions in the region of the Mexican
border or near frequently used ports of entry for travel to and from
Mexico by land, sea or air, should consider whether significant
changes in their U.S. currency activity might be related to the
changes in Mexico. * The limitations upon U.S. currency activity in
Mexico may lead to increased demand by Mexican persons, and
non-Mexican persons doing business with Mexico, for other types of
payment services or products to settle debts that might previously
have been paid in U.S. currency. This could include increased demand
for Mexican peso banknotes; debit cards, credit cards and pre-paid
products presented in Mexico to access funds in U.S. accounts;
increased use of wire transfers; ACH; money orders, checks or other
paper instruments; etc. * Moreover, to the extent that one source of
U.S. currency in Mexico has been proceeds of crime in the United
States that has been bulk shipped to Mexico, the restrictions upon the
ability to integrate bulk currency into the Mexican financial system
may cause criminals in the United States to attempt to launder more
U.S. currency within the United States. This may be accompanied by
attempts to transfer non-cash proceeds to Mexico, such as through
other types of payment services or products, transfer of goods or
commodities, or other means, such as trade-based money laundering.10 *
U.S. currency may be diverted from Mexico through intermediary
countries – in particular, currency that is not tied to legitimate
economic activity in Mexico, but rather related to narcotics
trafficking or other organized crime. Financial institutions should
thus consider, as part of their risk management related to bulk
currency activities generally, whether they understand the causes of
sudden significant increases in U.S.  currency activities involving
jurisdictions other than Mexico to avoid unknowingly facilitating the
processing of U.S.  currency diverted from past Mexican activity.

For questions regarding this Advisory, contact FinCEN’s Regulatory
Helpline at (800)949-2732.

Unofficial Translation
<http://www.fincen.gov/news_room/rp/files/06-2010-0238-eng-final.pdf>
The original Mexican regulations referenced in this advisory may be
found at:
<http://dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5146921&fecha=16/06/2010>
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** Since 1954 the Netherlands Antilles has been a separate country
within the Kingdom of the Netherlands, consisting of Aruba, and
Curacao, Dutch St. Maarten and the BES islands (Bonaire, St.
Eustatius and Saba.) Aruba received Status Aprate in 1986 and now
Curacao and St. Maarteen are seeking similar status while the BES
islands want to become special municipalities with more control over
internal affairs.

The Netherlands Antilles is scheduled to be dissolved as a unified
political entity on October 10,2010.

October 10th, 2010 is the date that Curacao and St. Maarten become
separate countries within the Kingdom and that the Netherlands
Antilles will cease to exist.

From January 1, 2011 the US dollar will be used as legal tender within
the BES.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dumbing Down

Tesco demands ID from 33 year old man – and refuses to sell him
alcohol when he hasn’t got any
- Alex Deane

I’m slow to pick up on this story but, as if by magic, I find that the
point I made elsewhere, that there is a growing, bureaucratic,
automatic authoritarian demand for identification (which would only be
fuelled by ID cards) demonstrated in a story to make one bleed from
the eyes in irritation:

Man aged 33 is refused a bottle of wine in Tesco… because he had no
ID

Headline says it all, you might think. Imposing their own unnecessary
rules above and beyond the law (”Think 25″) – driven in part by
absurdly harsh laws that punish shops for misselling goods, and also
by a total lack of common sense on the part of stupid, literalist,
jobsworth staff. Rules is rules. You can’t be too careful. Typical
demonstration of the ridiculous culture we’ve allowed ourselves to
fall into.

But wait, there’s more: his fianc e (aged 29) was there, and gave her
ID. The shop still wouldn’t sell it to them because “she might be
buying it for a minor” (i.e. the chappie, aged 33).

And there’s even MORE:

Earlier this year the same store was criticised for its ‘patronising’
attitude by a furious father who was refused entry because he was
carrying his daughter on his shoulders.

Martin Dunkley, 45, was about to enter the premises with daughter
Natalie, six, when a security guard stopped them for health and safety
reasons.

Let’s remember that whilst our bureaucrats excel at nannyism, they’re
not the only people at it – the private sector is perfectly capable of
crass, cotton-wool, cloying, soft authoritarianism, too.

Shamrock’s Comment: Stupidity knows no bounds!
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dumb Laws

RateMyCop User Ensnared in ‘Dumbest Case Ever’
- David Kravets

A Florida man arrested and briefly jailed for posting a local police
officer’s home address on a cop-rating site said Wednesday his ordeal
was “completely crazy.”

“Just because I posted it, I got arrested.  It wasn’t like it was the
Pentagon Papers,” Robert Brayshaw, a 35-year-old Tallahassee man, said
in a telephone interview.

Brayshaw’s comments came hours after the deadline passed for Florida
to appeal a federal judge’s decision declaring the First Amendment
trumped Florida’s law meant to protect the privacy of police officers.
Brayshaw, who is now unemployed, said it has been difficult to get a
job because of his 2008 arrest.  He spent nearly three hours in jail
and was prosecuted under a 1972 statute making it unlawful to publish
personally identifying information of a police officer.

Florida and Tallahassee authorities agreed to pay $60,000 in damages
and legal fees to Brayshaw and his lawyers from the American Civil
Liberties Union.

Brayshaw said the officer “basically had her information listed
publicly in the phone book.”  He had a beef with the officer regarding
a trespassing flap in which he was not charged.

He posted to RateMyCop.com, a 2-year-old website that lets users rate
and comment on the uniformed police officers in their community.

RateMyCop uses public-records requests to gather the names and, in
some cases, badge numbers of thousands of uniformed cops at police
departments around the country, and allows users to post comments
about police they’ve interacted with. The site’s launch in 2008 drew
cries of outrage from police, who complained that they’d be put at
risk if their names were on the internet.

Brayshaw used the site to post anonymous comments about Tallahassee
Police Officer Annette Garrett, as well as her name and home address
information not normally cataloged by the site.  He wrote that Garrett
was rude to him when investigating a trespass call at an apartment
complex he was managing.

His case, he said, bounced through three judges, three prosecutors and
four public defenders, amid a year of local court proceedings.

“This is the dumbest case in America,” he said.

The authorities subpoenaed RateMyCop and Brayshaw’s internet service
provider to learn his identity, then booked him under the Florida law
a misdemeanor carrying up to a year in jail.  The case was later
dismissed against Brayshaw for procedural reasons, but he sued,
claiming the statute chills his speech.

U.S. District Judge Richard Smoak in Tallahassee ruled the First
Amendment does not protect “true threats, fighting words, incitements
to imminent lawless action, and classes of lewd and obscene speech.”
But publishing an officer’s phone number and address, he said, “is not
in itself a threat or serious expression of an intent to commit an
unlawful act of violence.”

The judge wrote he appreciated the intent of the 38-year-old law, but
noted that it went too far. “While the state interest of protecting
police officers from harm or death may be compelling,” the judge said
the law “was not narrowly tailored to serve this interest.”
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dumb signs -

Are Cameras the New Guns?
- Gizmodo

In response to a flood of Facebook and YouTube videos that depict
police abuse, a new trend in law enforcement is gaining popularity.
In at least three states, it is now illegal to record any on-duty
police officer.

Even if the encounter involves you and may be necessary to your
defense, and even if the recording is on a public street where no
expectation of privacy exists.

The legal justification for arresting the “shooter” rests on existing
wiretapping or eavesdropping laws, with statutes against obstructing
law enforcement sometimes cited. Illinois, Massachusetts, and
Maryland are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for
a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious
to all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent,
the camera-wielder can be arrested. Most all-party-consent states
also include an exception for recording in public places where “no
expectation of privacy exists” (Illinois does not) but in practice
this exception is not being recognized.

Massachusetts attorney June Jensen represented Simon Glik who was
arrested for such a recording. She explained, “[T]he statute has been
misconstrued by Boston police. You could go to the Boston Common and
snap pictures and record if you want.” Legal scholar and professor
Jonathan Turley agrees, “The police are basing this claim on a
ridiculous reading of the two-party consent surveillance law
requiring all parties to consent to being taped.  I have written in
the area of surveillance law and can say that this is utter nonsense.”

The courts, however, disagree.  A few weeks ago, an Illinois judge
rejected a motion to dismiss an eavesdropping charge against
Christopher Drew, who recorded his own arrest for selling one-dollar
artwork on the streets of Chicago. Although the misdemeanor charges
of not having a peddler’s license and peddling in a prohibited area
were dropped, Drew is being prosecuted for illegal recording, a Class
I felony punishable by 4 to 15 years in prison.

In 2001, when Michael Hyde was arrested for criminally violating the
state’s electronic surveillance law, aka recording a police encounter
the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld his conviction 4-2.
In dissent, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall stated, “Citizens have a
particularly important role to play when the official conduct at issue
is that of the police. Their role cannot be performed if citizens
must fear criminal reprisals .” (Note: In some states it is the audio
alone that makes the recording illegal.)
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dumb facts

Fined for the length of your dog lead. A cash-strapped council has come
up with an ingenious way of raking in revenue from law-abiding people
- the Manchester Evening News

Dog owners are facing GBP1,000 fines if they take their pets to the
park on long leads.

The ban on leads longer than two metres (6ft5in) applies to dozens of
parks and open spaces.

Bosses at Tameside council say they have brought in the measure to
reduce dog fouling. The council says owners are more likely to clean
up after their pets if they are on a short lead.

Tameside is the first local authority in Greater Manchester to bring
in the rule and introduced it despite many retractable leads being
between five and eight metres in length.

I would love to see the council’s research that suggests the distance
between dog-on-lead and dog-owner is representative of the likelihood
of said dog-owner cleaning up dog mess. I would predict that no such
research exists (not even a council would be stupid enough to
commission something like that) – but even if it did, I would think
that the personality of the dog owner is a far stronger (if not the
strongest) indicator of whether dog mess is cleared-up.

Then there’s the question of how this policy would be policed.  Are we
going to see litter wardens and PCSOs in Tameside whipping out their
tape measures every time a person walks past with a dog on a lead?

Overall, it takes a sane person all of 10 seconds to realise this idea
is completely barking mad (if you’ll excuse the pun). Rather than
targeting the people that leave dog mess, it hits law-abiding dog
walkers in the pocket.  Fining someone for the length of their dog
lead is absurd; fining someone GBP1000 is outrageous.

Final word goes to Tameside Council who claim the idea is intended to
make parks ‘more enjoyable’ – Ministry of Love anyone?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** Dumb criminal acts

Fort Knox Nurseries
- Dylan Sharpe

Fingerprint scanning and passwords for entry, mobile phones banned and
a network of impregnable fences and CCTV cameras.

What could I be describing?

A new prison?

A bank vault?

No – this is the latest security upgrade at…a Bolton nursery.

Visitors to Bolton Day Nursery will soon find themselves having to
undergo fingerprint scanning at the door, while all mobile phones will
be banned from the nursery, and no parent will be allowed in without a
child collection password.

Locks and fences will be upgraded, CCTV will be extended and no
supplier will be allowed access without identification.

The GBP60,000 “supersafe” initiative is in response to parents’
feedback at the Chorley Street Nursery, inside the David Lloyd Leisure
Club, about security being their top concern.

Over-the-top doesn’t even come close as a description for this scheme.
It takes the idea of responding to demand to a quite ridiculous level.

Of course parents want their children to be safe – but turning the
nursery into a pre-school Wormwood Scrubs, in which parents are
treated like criminals and children immunised to mass surveillance, is
an absurd response.

The cost is as excessive as the intrusion, not to mention wholly
unnecessary.  I can only hope the parents of Bolton Day Nursery are
equally opposed to this development and stop Asquith Nurseries rolling
it out to their other 83 establishments.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Cannon Fodder

Remember, the internet is not a private place
- Dylan Sharpe

It hasn’t escaped Big Brother Watch’s attention that we are
increasingly reporting on the dangers of social networking, the
security of our email and WiFi accounts and general concerns about
what happens to our online browsing history.

In fact, to catalogue this slew of stories, we have now added a new
category to our word cloud below called ‘Online privacy’.

This latest story is the perfect example of why this is an
increasingly problematic issue (from the Daily Mail):

Some of Britain’s most famous companies have been ’spying’ on their
customers, it was claimed yesterday.

BT is among firms that have been using specialist software to find out
who has been making complaints about them to friends on social
networking sites.

Other companies like easyJet and Carphone Warehouse are also tracking
conversations on websites such as Twitter, YouTube and Facebook. They
then contact the complainants and offer to solve their problems.

BT uses software called Debatescape, which hunts through social
networking websites for key words or phrases that suggest someone is
making critical comments.

There are several slightly sinister conclusions to draw from this; not
least that if these companies have this technology you can bet that
our central and local government – as well as any number of law
enforcement agencies and quangos – are also monitoring our online
communications.

Indeed, as I wrote recently, there are already plans afoot in the EU
Parliament to have every internet search in Europe recorded for
monitoring.

From our inception, Big Brother Watch has sought to keep the state out
of our private web activities – this latest story provides a reminder,
if it were needed, that the internet is never a private place.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Oz/Nzed Corner

Australia moves forward with internet censorship
- smh.com.au

What a horrible move in the wrong direction.

The government’s $128.8 million Cyber Safety policy includes forcing
internet service providers to block access to a secret blacklist of
website pages identified as ”refused classification” by Australian
government bureaucrats.

Web pages will be nominated for blacklisting by Australian internet
users who come across illegal or ”unacceptable” websites.

“This is a policy that will be going ahead,” Senator Conroy said. “We
are still consulting on the final details of the scheme. But this
policy has been approved by 85 per cent of Australian internet service
providers, who have said they would welcome the filter, including
Telstra, Optus, iPrimus and iinet.”

***NZed***

New Zealand cities rate as cheapest in Asia-Pacific
- NZHerald

Auckland and Wellington are cheaper to live in than any other major
city in the Asia-Pacific region, according to a global survey.

Mercer’s 2010 Worldwide Cost of Living Survey ranked Wellington 163rd
out of 214 cities. Auckland had slightly greater living costs at
149th, equal with Aberdeen and just ahead of Johannesburg (150) and
Kuwait City (151).

The higher-ranked the city is, the more expensive it is to live in.

Mercer senior associate Anthony Shippard said New Zealand’s position
on the list was “very good news”.

“The cost of living within New Zealand is really one of the most
reasonable in the whole of the Asia-Pacific region, and of the
developed economies within the Asia-Pacific region, it really is the
best.”

Mr Shippard said New Zealand had an advantage in that its economy had
not been as strongly affected by the recession as others.  ”The
strength of the New Zealand economy and, really, the state of your
currency, has meant that the US dollar is still able to buy
significant international goods at reasonable costs within New
Zealand.”

The survey is aimed at international companies which transfer
employees to cities around the world.  Cities were ranked by comparing
the prices of more than 200 everyday items, including housing,
transport, food, clothing and entertainment.

Mr Shippard said New Zealand would be regarded as a favourable
destination for companies sending employees overseas. “At the moment,
New Zealand looks good from both the employee perspective, in that the
quality of life is very good, but also the employer perspective, in
that the cost of relocating someone there is so low.”

Both Auckland and Wellington ranked highly in Mercer’s 2010 Worldwide
Quality of Living Survey last month, with Auckland taking fourth place
and Wellington coming in 12th.

In the Cost of Living Survey, three African nations featured in the
top 10 most expensive cities, with European centres taking the other
spots. First place went to Luanda, capital of southwest African
nation Angola, while other costly destinations included Tokyo (2),
Moscow (4) and Geneva (5).

The cheapest Australian city was Adelaide (90), while Sydney ranked as
one of the world’s priciest (26).

The most budget-friendly city surveyed was Pakistan’s financial
capital, Karachi, ranked lowest at 214th.

The survey measured destinations against a base city, New York, while
currencies were compared with the US dollar.

Back to Oz

Advance Australian investigation Fair

Following in the footsteps of the national Data Protection Authorities
in Germany, France, Czech Republic, and Italy, Australia has announced
that there shall be a formal investigation into Google’s electronic
snooping via their Street View cars.

Australia’s communications minister, Stephen Conroy, said

Google was responsible for the single greatest breach in the history
of privacy.

Equally, American Congressmen are pushing for retention of the data
Google has stolen in the USA until a proper investigation has taken
place. As we said in our joint statement recently, the same should be
done here in the UK. If they destroy the evidence of what they’ve
done, how can it properly assist in policing e-snooping in the future?

The refusal of the UK’s Information Commissioner to investigate Google
here becomes ever-more difficult to justify. People in this country
face the prospect of never knowing what Google snatched from their
transmitted data, whilst those abroad have full investigations. How
can that be right?

More about Oz

First, China. Next: the Great Firewall of  Australia?
- Time Magazine

The concept of government-backed web censorship is usually associated
with nations where human rights and freedom of speech are routinely
curtailed. But if Canberra’s plans for a mandatory Internet filter go
ahead, Australia may soon become the first Western democracy to join
the ranks of Iran, China and a handful of other nations where access
to the Internet is restricted by the state.

Plans for a mandatory Internet filter have been a long-term subject of
controversy since they were first announced by Stephen Conroy, the
Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, in May
2008 as part of an $106 million “cybersafety plan.” The plan’s stated
purpose is to protect children when they go online by preventing them
from stumbling on illegal material like child pornography.  To do
this, Conroy’s Ministry has recommended blacking out about 10,000
websites deemed by the Australian Communications and Media Authority
(ACMA) to be so offensive that they are categorized as ‘RC,’ or
Refused Classification.

The government won’t reveal an official list of the URLs on the
current blacklist, but Conroy’s office says it includes sites
containing child sexual abuse imagery, bestiality, sexual violence,
detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use and/or material
that advocates the doing of a terrorist act. “Under Australia’s
existing [laws] this material is not available in news agencies, it is
not on library shelves, you cannot watch it on a DVD or at the cinema
and it is not shown on television,” Conroy’s office e-mailed in a
statement. But in March 2009, when a 2,395-site blacklist was leaked
to Wikileaks, an online clearinghouse for anonymous submissions, it
seemed confusingly broad, containing, among others, the websites of a
dentist from Queensland, a pet-care facility in Queensland, and a site
belonging to a school cafeteria consultant.

At the time, Conroy told the Sydney Morning Herald that any
Australians involved in the leak could face criminal charges. “No one
interested in cyber safety would condone the leaking of this list,” he
said.

Since then, criticism of the proposed Internet filter has escalated.
“Nobody likes it,” says Scott Ludlam, a senator from the Australian
Greens Party. “Everyone from the communications industry to child
protection rights and online civil liberties groups think this idea is
deeply flawed.”  Throughout 2009 GetUp!, an internet-based political
activism organization, launched an advertising campaign to raise
public awareness about the government’s proposal. (That July, the
advertisement the group made was banned from screenings on Qantas
domestic flights into Canberra.) In February, Anonymous, a community
of Internet users, which include hackers, shut down the Australian
Parliament’s web site in their second attack against the filter, which
they called “Operation: Titstorm”  a reference to the sexual content
that the filter will be blocking. Save the Children has questioned
the efficacy of the filter in protecting children, and in March,
Paris-based Reporters Without Borders listed Australia as a country
that’s “under surveillance” in its annual “Internet Enemies” report,
which rounds up the “worst violators of freedom of expression on the
Net.”

Read full story at
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1995615,00.html
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Bug Bites:

Chinese Supercomputer Is Ranked World’s Second-Fastest, Challenging
U.S. Dominance
- NY Times

A Chinese supercomputer has been ranked as the world’s second-fastest
machine, surpassing European and Japanese systems and underscoring
China’s aggressive commitment to science and technology.

The Dawning Nebulae, based at the National Supercomputing Center in
Shenzhen, China, has achieved a sustained computing speed of 1.27
petaflops, the equivalent of one thousand trillion mathematical
operations a second, in the latest semiannual ranking of the world’s
fastest 500 computers.

The newest ranking was made public on Monday at the International
Supercomputer Conference in Hamburg, Germany.  Supercomputers are used
for scientific and engineering problems as diverse as climate
simulation and automotive design.

The Chinese machine is actually now ranked as the world’s fastest in
terms of theoretical peak performance, but that is considered a less
significant measure than the actual computing speed achieved on a
standardized computing test.  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
=

*** Red Hot Product!

Aonymous Hong Kong mobile sim chip – Cheapest Roaming Time (Asian) Sim
Card with US$100 roaming time included. Just S$399 including
registered airmail dispatch!

Only a handful left, so it’s strictly first come, first served.

Order at https://www.ptshamrock.com/order_bwe.html Your ordering code
is “HKsim”.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** Wikileaks Was Launched With Documents Intercepted From Tor
- Kim Zetter

Wikileaks, the controversial whistleblowing site that exposes secrets
of governments and corporations, bootstrapped itself with a cache of
documents obtained through an internet eavesdropping operation by one
of its activists, according to a new profile of the organization’s
founder.

The activist siphoned more than a million documents as they traveled
across the internet through Tor, also known as “The Onion Router,” a
sophisticated privacy tool that lets users navigate and send documents
through the internet anonymously.

The siphoned documents, supposedly stolen by Chinese hackers or spies
who were using the Tor network to transmit the data, were the basis
for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange’s assertion in 2006 that his
organization had already “received over one million documents from 13
countries” before his site was launched, according to the article in
The New Yorker.

Only a small portion of those intercepted documents were ever posted
on Wikileaks, but the new report indicates that some of the data and
documents on WikiLeaks did not come from sources who intended for the
documents to be seen or posted. It also explains an enduring mystery
of Wikileaks’ launch: how the organization was able to amass a
collection of secret documents before its website was open for
business.

Tor is a sophisticated privacy tool endorsed by the Electronic
Frontier Foundation and other civil liberties groups as a method for
whistleblowers and human rights workers to communicate with
journalists, among other uses. In its search for government and
corporate secrets traveling through the Tor network, it’s conceivable
that WikiLeaks may have also vacuumed up sensitive information from
human rights workers who did not want their data seen by outsiders.

The interception may have legal implications, depending on what
country the activist was based in. In the United States, the
surreptitious interception of electronic communication is generally a
violation of federal law, but the statute includes a broad exception
for service providers who monitor their own networks for legitimate
maintenance or security reasons. “The statutory language is broad
enough that it might cover this and provide a defense,” says former
U.S. federal prosecutor Mark Rasch.

The New Yorker article did not indicate whether WikiLeaks continues to
intercept data from the Tor network. Assange did not immediately
return a call for comment from Threat Level.

WikiLeaks uses a modified version of the Tor network for its own
operations, moving document submissions through it to keep them
private. WikiLeaks computers also reportedly feed “hundreds of
thousands of fake submissions through these tunnels, obscuring the
real documents,” according to The New Yorker.

The intercepted data was gathered from Tor sometime before or around
December 2006, when Assange and fellow activists needed a substantial
number of documents in their repository in order to be taken seriously
as a viable tool for whistleblowers and others.

The solution came from one of the activists associated with the
organization who owned and operated a server that was being used in
the Tor anonymizing network.  Tor works by using servers donated by
volunteers around the world to bounce traffic around, en route to its
destination. Traffic is encrypted through most of that route, and
routed over a random path each time a person uses it.

Under Tor’s architecture, administrators at the entry point can
identify the user’s IP address, but can’t read the content of the
user’s correspondence or know its final destination. Each node in the
network thereafter only knows the node from which it received the
traffic, and it peels off a layer of encryption to reveal the next
node to which it must forward the connection.

By necessity, however, the last node through which traffic passes has
to decrypt the communication before delivering it to its final
destination. Someone operating that exit node can therefore read the
traffic passing through this server.

According to The New Yorker, “millions of secret transmissions passed
through” the node the WikiLeaks activist operated   believed to be an
exit node.  The data included sensitive information of foreign
governments.

The activist believed the data was being siphoned from computers
around the world by hackers who appeared to be in China and who were
using the Tor network to transmit the stolen data.  The activist began
recording the data as it passed through his node, and this became the
basis for the trove of data Wikileaks said it had “received.”

Read the rest of this article at
<http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/wikileaks-documents/#more-16575>

Shamrock comment: The above article clearly reveals why it is
essential to use encryption no matter how you communicate these days.
It is imperative that you send emails, attachments or other
information via the Internet always encrypted using pgp.

If you do not currently use pgp email encryption, email us and place
“PGP” in your subject heading.  We’ll be happy to email you an easy to
download and use guide on pgp for encrypted emails, etc.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Shamrock’s Missive:

The Quest for the ultimate bank account!

We receive more emails from readers and customers about getting a rock
solid bank account, an account where the bank isn’t a proctologist
asking you for an invoice for each and every wire in and out for as
little as US$1500, sometimes less, than any other subject matter.

Let face it readers, banking these days has become less than
enjoyable, no thanks to the US and Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) authorities and their never ending
list of compliance requirements. Long gone are the hassle free days
of banking.

I believe our leprechaun has indeed discovered the Ultimate offshore
bank account.

For more than 15 years PT Shamrock enjoyed hassle free banking in
Switzerland. Our account there was fast and reliable and we can’t
remember when we were asked about what this or that wire transfer was
for or about.

However last year all that changed. We never thought we could locate
a bank that was equal to or better than our former Swiss bank account.

We are pleased to report that we were wrong. In fact we were very
wrong indeed. Our company bank account in Hong Kong is superior, in
fact FAR superior, to our former Swiss account. Here’s why, what we
figured out and why;

First and most important, China owns Hong Kong and clearly isn’t going
to kowtow to OECD and or any other regulatory authority about filing
requirements, etc. including the US, UK and EU authorities.

Nearly every nationality is welcomed as customers, including our
American customers. There is no reporting to EU, UK or American tax
authorities. There are no W-9 filings of any sort, no social security
or other such nonsense numbers required. No bankers or professional
rferences are necessary and you aren’t required to have your passport
copy notarized; a simple photocopy will suffice along with a current
utility bill.

With a Hong Kong company and HK bank account you can achieve and
accomplish many things. You will receive or have the ability to
receive for example;
* Great easy to use internet banking, provided via a bank code device
(looks like a calculator).
* You receive an atm card for cash withdrawals around the world
* Our HK source creates you business plan for you in order to ensure
your bank account is opened and in good order
* The option for anyone of either a Premier MasterCard credit card,
Advance Visa Platinum Card, Visa Platinum card, Green credit card,
Gold card or a Classic credit card, any of which can be ordered
online direct once your account is opened.
* Your own company in your chosen name
* The option for nominee directors and or shareholders for greater
anonymity
* Online Securities Trading * Stocks monthly investment programs
* Enhance your foreign currency portfolio * Insurance services including;
Travel Insurance, Life Cover, Health Insurance, Accident Insurance, Home
Insurance, Fire Insurance and even golfer insurance!
* You can buy trade gold online as well * Multi currency account, in USD,
Euro, CHF, AUD, HKD, JYN, etc.
* You have the option to obtain a virtual office in Hong Kong as well
* Plus much more!

Please understand that due to contractual agreement, we are unable to
provide the name of this bank until we receive a paid order. That
legalize aside, this Hong Kong bank is with one of the safest and
strongest worldwide renowned banks, bar none. They have hundreds of
branches around the world and we’re confident you’ll be as pleased as
we are been once you make the move.

If you’re serious, email us and place “Hong Kong” as you subject
heading and PT Shamrock will be happy to act as your reference for
this exciting banking product as well as emailing you full particulars
on how to get started.

We aren’t sorry we moved our company banking and promise you won’t
either!

See you next issue

Shamrock

“The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.”
– Edmund Burke, 1784
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Quote

“Law was, and remains, whatever the power holders say it is.”
– Dr. Walter Belford – conversations, December 2006
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Even More Quotes

“You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the
wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working
for, another person must work for without receiving.”
– Adrian Rogers, 1931
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Another Quote

“History does not teach fatalism. There are moments when the will of
a handful of free men breaks through determinism and opens up new
roads.”
– Charles de Gaulle
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Thought provoking quotes:

“Privacy is an insurance policy against oppression. Privacy allows a
tyrannized citizenry to think independently, freely, and clearly.”
– Michael Hampton
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** Tid Bits

‘Mal-intent’ may be the future of security
– Los Angeles Times

If Bob Burns is correct, terrorists may betray themselves someday by
jiggling on a Nintendo Wii balance board, blinking too fast, curling a
lip like Elvis — or doing nothing at all. Burns and his team of
scientists are researching whether video game boards, biometric
sensors and other high-tech devices can be used to detect distinct
nonverbal cues from people who harbor “mal-intent,” or malicious
intent.

“We’re looking pre-event,” said Burns, the No. 2 at the Homeland
Security Advanced Research Project Agency, a counterpart of the fabled
Pentagon agency that developed Stealth aircraft and the Internet.

“We’re trying to detect a crime before it has occurred.”

OK, roll the sci-fi thriller “Minority Report,” in which Tom Cruise
and other “pre-crime” cops use psychic visions to arrest murderers
before they kill. Or maybe “The Men Who Stare at Goats,” a George
Clooney comedy inspired by real military experiments with supposedly
psychic soldiers.

The work on mal-intent, which has cost $20 million so far, represents
the future in screening: trying to find the bomber, not just the bomb.

“Sometimes people look at our projects and say, ‘This is crazy,’”
conceded Burns, a former submarine weapons officer. If Burns’ group
is delving into the mind of terrorists, another Homeland Security
agency is studying its face. The human factors division has spent
nearly $20 million to experiment with micro-expressions, or
super-quick flickers of facial muscles, that may — or may not –
indicate hostile intent.

Researchers are studying 275 videos of test interviews — frame by
painstaking frame, 30 frames a second, each video up to 10 minutes
long — so analysts can catalog “micro-facial emotional leakages.”

“We are breaking new ground here,” said Larry Willis, the project
director.

The need for improvement is clear. Security teams trained to spot
suspicious behavior have pulled 152,000 people out of airport lines in
recent years, according to a report this month from the Government
Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.

That led to about 1,100 arrests, mostly for immigration violations and
outstanding warrants. No one was charged with terrorism.

But screeners failed to spot 16 travelers who later were linked to
failed terrorist plots in New York and Virginia, jihadist training in
Pakistan and lethal attacks in Somalia, Afghanistan and India.

The report didn’t include the Nigerian man accused of trying to light
a bomb in his underwear on a Detroit-bound flight on Christmas Day, or
the Pakistani American who was pulled off a plane in New York on
charges of trying to explode a car bomb in Times Square.

According to the report, the Transportation Security Administration
failed to validate the underlying science before deploying 3,000
behavior detection officers to 161 commercial airports, about a third
of the nation’s total.

“A scientific consensus does not exist on whether behavior detection
principles can be reliably used for counter-terrorism purposes,” the
report said.

Paul Ekman, the nation’s foremost researcher into nonverbal cues that
indicate deceit, disputes that claim and argues more human observers
with better training are needed. He doubts high-tech tools can do the
job any better.

“I’m ambivalent (about mal-intent) because it’s a very high-risk
endeavor,” said Ekman, a professor emeritus at UC San Francisco. “The
odds are against it actually working in the field. But if you’re
going to try it, they’re doing the best job that can be done.”

Ekman dismissed Willis’ work, however. “The research already shows
that not every person intending harm shows micro-expression,” he said.
“So it’s a waste of time.”

Other senior researchers and academics say both research teams appear
to be on the right track.

“I was very skeptical at first,” said Gary Berntson, a professor of
psychology, psychiatry and pediatrics at Ohio State University. “But
it’s not voodoo science. It’s cutting-edge.”

Mark Frank, a psychologist who studies nonverbal behavior at the State
University of New York at Buffalo, called the work worthwhile.

“If the science helps us make better guesses, I think that is very
productive,” Frank said. “Or at least it’s the right approach.”

David Matsumoto, director of the Culture and Emotion Research
Laboratory at San Francisco State University, cautioned that people
“want a silver bullet, a 100 percent foolproof system.”

“That’s never going to happen,” he said. “But can they deploy
something that’s better than we have now? I think both programs are
well on their way to doing that.”

The mal-intent project began in 2007 and is based on the unproven
premise that technology can identify and interpret physiological,
behavioral and paralinguistic cues from someone with mayhem in mind.

Rather than using a Ouija board, researchers have linked
high-resolution cameras, low-level lasers and other devices to measure
fidgeting, pupil dilation, skin temperature, heart rate and other
supposed clues.

“Let’s be clear,” said Dan Martin, the project’s director of research.
“There is no terrorist cue, no Pinocchio growing of the nose to
indicate a plotting terrorist.”

At least in theory, the sensors would record key data as each traveler
moved down a security line. A computer algorithm then would analyze
any shifts triggered by a guard’s questions and raise an alert if
necessary.

The network is supposed to disregard travelers who simply are stressed
out from flight delays, screaming infants, indigestion or other
hassles.

“Whether or not your grandmother is afraid of flying doesn’t matter,”
Martin said. “The question is how your grandmother responds to
specific stimuli, and that indicates whether she should be pulled out
for secondary screening.”

John Verrico, a Homeland Security spokesman, said operators also will
watch for people who show no response “because you have to take into
account there are people who train themselves not to reveal
themselves.”

Age affects responses more than gender, race or ethnicity, the
research shows. Experiments have included only Americans so far, so
the system’s utility with visitors from other countries and cultures
is unclear.

Privacy advocates, civil libertarians and some social scientists are
incredulous.

“This is like eugenics 100 years ago when scientists said you could
tell criminals by the shape of their eyes or the slope of their head,”
said Lillie Coney, associate director of the nonprofit Electronic
Privacy Information Center. “It was bogus science then and it’s bogus
science now.”

Jay Stanley, a privacy expert at the American Civil Liberties Union,
called the work “absurd on its face.”

Bella DePaulo, visiting professor of psychology at UC Santa Barbara,
said she doubted researchers could ever simulate what a terrorist
thinks or feels.

“Lots of people, myself included, have studied how you tell when
people are lying or telling the truth,” she said. “But they’re
telling little lies. They’re not trying to blow up a bomb or fly a
plane into a building. How do you test for that?”
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** More Tid Bits

Bill would give DHS emergency cyber powers
– Federal News Radio

We’re learning more about the cybersecurity package forming in the
Senate. Wired.com reports Sen. Joe Lieberman, (I-Conn.) wants to
give the federal government the power to take over civilian networks’
security, if there’s an “imminent cyber threat.”s It’s part of a draft
bill, co-sponsored by Senators Lieberman and Susan Collins, that
provides DHS with the authority to ensure that critical infrastructure
stays up and running in the face of a looming hack attack.

The Senate version of the fiscal 2011 Defense authorization bill
scheduled to be released later this week is going to include funding
for pilot programs that will explore new ways for Defense Department
agencies and contractors to have greater access to cybersecurity tools
and services. NextGov cites sources from the Armed Services
Committee. Their completed markup of its version of the Defense bill
will include funding for projects that require the department to
partner with industry to track cyber threats, and speed up the
acquisition of cybersecurity products and services. The funding would
add to the $10 million in the fiscal 2010 supplemental appropriations
bill the Senate passed on May 27 for the Defense and Homeland Security
departments to conduct cybersecurity pilots.

Agencies looking to establish super-secure Internet hookups under the
Trusted Internet Connection program now have a vendor to turn to. The
General Services Administration has issued the first certification for
a TIC product to AT&T Government Solutions. The company’s Managed
Trusted Internet Protocol Services are available under GSA’s Networx
telecommunications contract. A spokesman says AT&T is the first
provider to receive authority to activate trusted connections.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** Bits and bobs

Surveillance cameras in Birmingham track Muslims’ every move
– London Guardian

Counterterrorism police have targeted hundreds of surveillance cameras
on two Muslim areas of Birmingham, enabling them to track the precise
movements of people entering and leaving the neighbourhoods.

The project has principally been sold to locals as an attempt to
combat antisocial behaviour, vehicle crime and drug dealing in the
area. But the cameras have been paid for by a GBP3m grant from a
government fund, the Terrorism and Allied Matters Fund, which is
administered by the Association of Chief Police Officers.

About 150 automatic numberplate recognition (ANPR) cameras have been
installed in Washwood Heath and Sparkbrook in recent months.
Birmingham’s two predominantly Muslim suburbs will be covered by three
times more ANPR cameras than are used to monitor the entire city
centre. They include about 40 cameras classed as “covert”, meaning
they have been concealed from public view.

The funding arrangement was not made clear to the handful of
councillors who were briefed that the cameras would appear in their
area. Instead, they were told only that the money had come from the
Home Office. “I raised my concern then: is this really about spying?”
said Salma Yaqoob, a member of the Respect party and councillor for
Sparkbrook.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** More Bits n bobs

False economy

Government Jobs Account for 95% of May Job Increases
– Bloomberg

Employers in the U.S. hired fewer workers in May than forecast and
Americans dropped out of the labor force, showing a lack of confidence
in the recovery that may lead to slower economic growth.

Payrolls rose by 431,000 last month, including a 411,000 jump in
government hiring of temporary workers for the 2010 census, Labor
Department figures in Washington showed today. Economists projected a
536,000 gain, according to the median forecast in a Bloomberg News
survey. Private payrolls rose a less-than-forecast 41,000. The
jobless rate fell to 9.7 percent.

Stocks declined and Treasuries surged on expectations a slowing in the
labor market will restrain consumer spending, the biggest part of the
economy. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said yesterday
that unemployment was exacting a heavy toll, showing why economists
forecast interest rates will remain low.

“Hiring looks soft,” said Michael Feroli, chief U.S. economist at
JPMorgan Chase & Co. in New York. “It does raise some red flags that
businesses are still pretty cautious.”
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** Deflationary Depression and Purging To Come

What now that stimulus packages are ending, money set to plunge,
market control by insiders has to end, Fed doesn’t need a monopoly,
bond sales down, still high expectations for gold.

Read the entire article at

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** Brazilian banker’s crypto baffles FBI
– The Register

Cryptographic locks guarding the secret files of a Brazilian banker
suspected of financial crimes have defeated law enforcement officials.

Brazilian police seized five hard drives when they raided the Rio
apartment of banker Daniel Dantas as part of Operation Satyagraha in
July 2008. But subsequent efforts to decrypt files held on the
hardware using a variety of dictionary-based attacks failed even after
the South Americans called in the assistance of the FBI.

Full article at

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Hints & Tips

Biometric cash machine lands in Europe
– John Leyden

A Polish bank has become the first in Europe to offer the use of
biometrics instead of PINs at cash machines.

Customers of BPS visiting one of its ATM in Warsaw have the option of
using placing their fingerprints on readers, instead inputting a four
digit code, to authorise withdrawals or other transactions following
the introduction of new technology this week.

The system is based on the recognition of the pattern of veins in an
enrolled customer’s finger, a form of biometric technology developed
by Hitachi. The technology is already widely used in Japan but new to
Europe.

Customers are still issued with the same debit or credit card and it’s
only the authorisation method that changes – a pre-registered
fingerprint is offered as alternative to a memorised four-digit PIN -
as illustrated by a picture of the technology in use at BPS here.

“Our bank is the first in Europe to provide its clients with a new
means to secure transactions to complement the secret code of their
banking card,” said BPS Bank vice-president Krzysztof Jagielski.

Jagielski said the technology would help guard against losses from
scams such as ATM skimming while making it easier for pensioners to
withdraw state payments, AFP reports.

Three or four ATMs outfitted with biometric-recognition technology are
to be installed in Warsaw by the end of the year, with plans to
install a further 200 across Poland over an unspecified time period.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** Letters to the Editor:

Keep them postcards and letters coming’ folks, ’cause we
done mailed the rosebushes!!

Dear Shamrock:

As always, great info. Well done mate.

Cheers,

JCP

Dear Shamrock:

In your June letter you recommend:

“Finally how about starting a part time Internet business or a
business that travels with you anywhere in the world where there’s an
internet connection, which is just about everywhere these days.”

Do you have any suggestions for such a business? I receive many
solicitations but worry that most are scams, etc.

Thank you

J. M.

Hello J. M.;

Thanks for your query.

We agree with you, we certainly wouldn’t go for any of the spam
adverts received and neither should you.

We suggest, first off, thinking about what you really like to do.
Something that perhaps you haven’t had a chance to pursue previously
for whatever reasons. Then think about starting a part time Internet
business with that something you really love. If you have a passion
for something you like, that greatly increases your chances of success
in your new Internet business.

You can go to your local library and borrow books at no cost to you on
how to start a business, etc. Ask your librarian and they’ll be more
than helpful in guiding you in the right book direction.

For the PT like minded individual, take a look at the books on offer
at http://www.ptshamrock.com/reports/index.html and our friends at
Eden Press, www.edenpress.com

Eden Press offers books on all kinds of topics including how to make
money, etc. Tell them PT Shamrock sent you.

Finally, don’t stop your current job until you have an income from a
part time Internet business equal to 50% of your current ***take
home*** pay! Then try lowering your monthly outgo expenses, i.e.
overhead, and try to save more of your take home money. Before long
these small baby steps can really turn your financial matters around
dramatically and with a successful internet business, set you free!

Any questions just ask.

Kindest regards and the best of luck

PT Shamrock

Dear Shamrock:

Good morning and “Happy June”!

I have to tell you I love your newsletter. Just wish there were 48
hours in a day.

Thanks, PT Shamrock, and have a great week!

D

Dear Shamrock:

As you might recall, I’m from Ecuador and I want to thank you for your
nationality and passport program from XXX in Central America.

In the last few years, in order for an Ecuadorian as well as many
other South American nationals to travel to Panama, Nicaragua, Costa
Rica or Mexico, one MUST, read that as mandatory, obtain a visitor’s
visa to the United States! Go figure that one out!

I do not now, nor never had any desire of visiting the United States.
This insane visa requirement, which has nothing to do with travel to
the United States, has thousands being held hostage by America and
restricting our right to free travel. My business requires my
traveling to Europe, Mexico, and Panama and on occasion to Costa Rica.
When the United States forced these visa requirements on the above
mentioned countries, it cost me thousands of dollars in lost business
and an untold loss of potential future business. Heaven knows how
many tens of thousands of innocent people have been effected by this
severe visa requirment just to visit our Northern neighbors, NOT the
United States.

While I can understand America’s need to keep illegal aliens from
entering or trying to enter that country, placing severe travel
restrictions on tens of thousands of legitimate business people who
have no intention of entering the US is, well, plain unfair and in my
opinion discriminatory.

Now with thanks to you and my passport from XXX, there is no need for
any visa from the US to travel to and conduct business in Panama,
Mexico and Costa Rica. I also have the ability to travel visa free to
the United Kingdom and all of Western Europe.

The money invested in your nationality program is money well worth it
and in fact, has paid for the passport several times over already.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart for being there for people like
myself.

Raul from Ecuador

Dear Raul from Ecuador;

Many thanks for the kind words and positive feedback.

Shamrock

Shamrock’s comment: Any reader interested in our Central American
nationality and passport program just email us with “CA” as your
subject heading. The particulars for this program will be emailed to
you.

Dear Shamrock:

Congratulations for your first class job/newsletter…

K.S.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Quote of the month!

“Those who have been once intoxicated with power, and have derived any
kind of emolument from it, even though for but one year, can never
willingly abandon it.”
– Edmund Burke
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*** “PT Shamrock’s Exclusive Member’s Site!”

Each month we offer exclusive information, free privacy programs,
access to our newsletter archives and other insider information
for members only.

Our member’s site is accessed by user name and password only. This
is available to our newsletter subscribers ONLY!

Each month the password will change and you will have to e-mail us
from your subscribers e-mail address to request the NEW password in
order to gain access.

As a subscriber to our newsletter you automatically qualify for this
exclusive service. Just send an e-mail to
and place “Members” in the subject
heading. We will forward to you full details for signing up and gaining
access to our Members Site, reserved for you.

Enjoy.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dear Friend:

If you like our newsletter please tell your friends and associates
about us. They can subscribe *FREE* by sending an e-mail to:
.

Our pledge!

We never spam our subscribers, never rent or give our
subscribers list to anyone, and unlike other newsletters do
not accept paid advertisements; And of course, our PT Buzz
Newsletter is absolutely free, just packed full of interesting
privacy news and information with a tad of humor thrown in for
good measure.

We’re probably the oldest privacy newsletter on the Internet!

Thank you for your patronage and help in spreading the word.

Shamrock

“The right to privacy is a part of our basic freedoms. Privacy is
fundamental to close family ties, competitive free enterprise, the
ownership of property, and the exchange of ideas.”

PT Shamrock – issue one; 1994
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Don’t forget to check out our Special Offers at

See you next issue!

“Mehr sein, als scheinen” (German Proverb)
Be more, seem less!

PT Shamrock
- – - – - – - – - – NOTICE – - – - – - – - – -
In compliance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is
distributed free without profit or payment for non-profit
research and for educational purposes only.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

———————————————————————–
To subscribe, send a blank message to PTBuzz-on@mail-list.com
To unsubscribe, send a blank message to PTBuzz-off@mail-list.com
To change your email address, send a message to PTBuzz-change@mail-list.com
with your old address in the Subject: line
To contact the list owner, send your message to
PTBuzz-list-owner@mail-list.com

PT Shamrock Limited Suite #79, 184 Lower Rathmines Road, Rathmines, Dublin D6, Ireland

In 1921, the federal Sheppart-Towner Maternity Act created the birth “registration” or what we now know as the “Birth Certificate”. It was known as the “Maternity Act” and was sold to the American people as a law that would reduce maternal and infant mortality, protect the health of mothers and infants, and for “other purposes”. One of those other purposes provided for state agencies in overseeing of it’s operations and expenditures. What it really did was create a federal “birth registry’ which exists today, creating “FEDERAL CHILDREN” . This government of “Parents Patriae”, now legislates for American children as if they are owned by the federal government. Through the public school enrollment process and continuing license requirements for most aspects of daily life, these children grow up to be adults indoctrinated into those things necessary to carry our activities that exist in what is call a “free country”. Before 1921, the records of births and names of children were entered into the family bibles, as were the records of marriages and deaths. These records were readily accepted by both the family and the law as “official records”. Since 1921, the American people have been registering the births and names of their children with the government of the state in which they are born, even though there is no federal law requiring it. The state tells you that registering your child’s birth through the birth certificate serves proof that he/she was born in the united States, thereby making him/her a United States Citizen. For the past several years a social security number has been mandated by the federal government to be issued at birth. The social security number is one of those “other purposes”. It serves as a means of lifelong tracking of the one whose name is on the birth certificate. In 1933, the united States of America (Corporate Government) was declared bankrupt by President Roosevelt. The governors of the then 48 States pledged the “full faith and credit” of each of their States, including the CITIZENRY AS COLLATERAL, for loans of credit from the Federal Reserve System. To wit; “FULL FAITH AND CREDIT” the clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article IV, Section 1) which provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the united States. It requires that foreign judgment be given such faith and credit as it had by law or usage of state of it’s origin. That foreign statutes are to have force and effect to which they are entitled in home state. And that a judgment of record shall have the same FAITH, CREDIT CONCLUSIVE EFFECT, and obligatory force in other states as it has by law or usage in the state from whence taken. Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, and Sixth Edition (page 672), cites omitted.

After receiving the information of live birth and other particulars for the birth certificate accompanied by the assigned social security number, the state claims an interest in every child within it’s jurisdiction. The state will, if it deems it necessary, nullify your parental rights and appoint a guardian (trustee) over your children. The subject of every birth certificate is a child. The child is a valuable asset which, if properly trained, can contribute valuable assets provided by it’s labor for many years. It is presumed by those who have researched this issue, that the child itself is the asset of the trust established by the birth certificate and the social security number is the numbering registration of the trust, allowing for the trust’s assets to be tracked. If this information is true (and we believe it is), our children are owned by the state. Each one of us, including our children, are considered assets of “bankrupt” united States Corporation. We are now designated by this government as “HUMAN RESOURCES” born in a DELIVERY room, delivered to the state of birth by way of the BIRTH CERTIFICATE for which our INFORMER (our Mother) provides the requested information including the NAME and SOCIAL SECURITY (or tracking) NUMBER wherewith this bankrupt government is supplied with new crop of COLLATERAL born each year. Page 1 0f 3 “FEDERAL CHILDREN” Page 1-20 In 1923, a suit was brought against “federal officials” (corporation) charged with the administration of the Maternity Act, who were citizens of another state, to enjoin them from enforcing it, wherein the plaintiff averred that the act was unconstitutional, and that it’s purpose was to induce the States to yield sovereign rights reserved by them through the federal Constitution’s 10th amendment and not granted to the federal government, and that the burden of the appropriations falls unequally upon the several States held that, as the statute does not require the plaintiff to do or yield anything and no burden is imposed by it other than that of taxation, which falls not on the State but on it’s inhabitants, who are within the federal as well as the state taxing power, the complaint resolves down to the naked contention that Congress has usurped reserved powers of the States by the mere enactment of the statute, though nothing has been, or is to be, done under it without their consent. (Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Melton, Secretary of the Treasury, et.al; Frothingham vs. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury, et.al.).

Mr. Alexander Lincoln, Assistant Attorney General, argued for the Commonwealth Massachusetts. To wit; 1. The act is unconstitutional. It purports to vest in agencies of the Federal Government (a Corporation) powers which are almost wholly undefined, in matters relating to maternity and infancy, and to authorize appropriations of federal funds for the purpose of the act. Many examples may be given and were stated in the debates on the bill in Congress of regulations which maybe imposed under the act; THE FORCED REGISTRATION OF PREGNANCY, GOVERNMENT PRENATAL EXAMINATION OF EXPECTANT MOTHERS, RESTRICTIONS OF THE RIGHT OF A WOMAN TO SECURE THE SERVICES OF A MIDWIFE OR PHYSICIAN OF HER OWN SELECTION, all are measures to which the people of those States which accept it’s provisions may be subjected. There is nothing, which prohibits the payment of subsidies out of Federal appropriations. INSURANCE OF MOTHERS MAY BE MADE COMPULSORY. THE TEACHING OF BIRTH CONTROL AND PHYSICAL INSPECTION OF PERSONS ABOUT TO MARRY MAYBE REQUIRED by Section 4 of the act, the Children’s Bureau is given all necessary powers to cooperate with the state agencies in the administration of the act. Hence it is given the power of assist in the plans submitted may provide. As to what those plans shall provide, the final arbiters are the Bureau and the Board. The FACT THAT IT WAS CONSIDERED NECESSARY IN EXPLICIT TERMS TO PRESERVE FROM INVASION BY FEDERAL OFFICIALS THE RIGHT OF THE PARENT TO THE CUSTODY AND CARE OF HIS CHILD AND THE SANCTITY OF HIS HOME SHOWS HOW FAR REACHING ARE THE POWERS WHICH WERE INTENDED TO BE GRANTED BY T.H E ACT (1) The act is invalid because it assumes powers not Granted to Congress and Usurps the local police power. McCulloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 405; United States vs. Cruickshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549-551. In more recent cases, however, the Court has shown that there are limits to the power of Congress to pass legislation purporting to be based on one of the powers expressly granted to Congress which in fact usurps the reserved powers of the States, and that laws showing on their face detailed regulations of matter wholly within the Police power of the States will be held to be unconstitutional although they purport to be passed in the exercise of some constitutional power, Hammer vs. Dagenhart, 247,259 U.S … 44. The act is not made valid by the circumstances that federal powers are to be exercised only with respect to those States which accept the act, for Congress cannot assume, and state legislatures cannot yield, the powers reserved to the States by the Constitution. A message of President Monroe, May 4, 1822; 4 Elliot’s Debates p. 525; Pollard’s Lessee vs. Hagan, 3 How. 212; Escanaba Co. vs. Chicago, 107 U.S. 678; Coyle vs. Oklahoma, 221 U.S. 559; Cincinnati vs. Lousiville & Nashville R. R. Co, 223 U.S. 390. Page 2 0f 3 “FEDERAL CHILDREN” Page 1-21 (2) The act is invalid because it imposes on each State an illegal option either to yield a part of its powers reserved by the Tenth Amendment or to give up its share of appropriations under the act. A statute attempting, by imposing conditions upon a general privilege, to exact a waiver of a constitutional right, is null and void. Harrison vs. St. Louis & San Francisco R.R. Co., 232 U.S. 318; Terral vs. Burke Construction Co., 257 U.S. 529. (3) The act is invalid because it sets up a system of government by cooperation between the Federal Government (a Corporation) and certain of the States, not provided by the Constitution. Congress cannot make laws for the States, and it cannot delegate to the States the power to make laws for the United States. In re: Rabrer, 140 U.S. 545; Knickerbocker Ice Co. vs. Stewart, 253 U.S. 149; Opinion of the Justices, 239 Mass. 606. The MATERNITY ACT was eventually repealed, but parts of it have been found in other legislative acts. What this ACT attempted to do was to set up government by appointment, run by bureaucrats with redelegated authority to tax, which is in itself unconstitutional. What was once declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of this nation in the past should be upheld in a court challenge today.

The constitution has not changed. What has changed is the way this government views human life. Today we are defined as HUMAN RESOURCES, believed to be owned by the government. The government now wants us, as individuals, to be tagged and tracked. Government mandated or legislated National I.D., which is unconstitutional. Federal jurisdiction to legislate for the several states does not exist and could never survive a court challenge as shown above. Writing letters to elected public servants will not save us when we all know their agenda does not include serving those who placed them in power (servitude). Perhaps the 10th Amendment of the federal constitution guaranteeing states rights will, if challenged, when making it known that we as individuals of the several states will not be treated as chattel of the U.S. government. If the federal government believes that they own us, and as such have the right to demand national I.D. cards, and health I.D. cards, which will in truth tag us as we tag our animals, then let them bring forth the documents to prove their authority to legislate for it. If our God given RIGHTS to life, liberty, freedom and Pursuit of happiness, which were the foundation upon which this nation was created do not exist, and liberty and freedom is only an illusion under which the American People suffer then let the government of this nation come forward and tell the people. But…..if we are judged free, then we should not have to plead or beg before our elected public servants to be treated as such. If, in truth we are not free, then perhaps it is our duty to address this issue forthright and forthwith with the power of the pen and pray the people will waken from their fear and slumber induced by greed.

On April 5, 1933, then President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, under Executive Order, issued April 5, 1933, declared: “All persons are required to deliver on or before May 1, 1933 all Gold Coin, Gold Bullion, and Gold Certificates now owned by them to a Federal Reserve Bank, branch or agency, or to any member bank of the Federal Reserve System.” James A. Farley, Postmaster General at that time, required each postmaster in the country to post a copy of the Executive Order in a conspicuous place within each branch of the Post Office. On the bottom of the posting was the following: Criminal Penalties for Violation of Executive Order $10, 000 fine or 10 years imprisonment, or both, as provided in Section 9 of the order. Section 9 of the order reads as follows: “Whosoever willfully violates any provisions of this Executive Order or of these regulations or of any rule, regulation or license issued thereunder may be fined not more than $10,000, or if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both; and any officer, director or agency of any corporation who knowingly participates in any such violation may be punished by a like fine, imprisonment, or both. NOTE: Stated within a written document received September 17, 1997, from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, Office of the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Richard L. Shiffin, in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), was the following: “A fact that is frequently overlooked is that Executive Orders and proclamations of the President normally have no direct effect upon private persons or their property, and instead, normally constitute only directives or instructions to officers or employees of the Federal Government. The exception is those cases in which the President is expressly authorized or required by laws enacted by the Congress to issue an Executive order or proclamation dealing with the legal rights or obligations of members of the public. Such as issuance of Selective Service Regulations, establishment of boards to investigate certain labor disputes, and establishment of quotas or fees with respect to certain imports into this country.” It seems rather obvious that President Franklin D. Roosevelt was not “expressly authorized or required” to “issue an Executive Order or proclamation” demanding the public (private) to relinquish their privately held gold. The order (proclamation) issued by Roosevelt was an undisciplined act of treason. Two months after the Executive Order, on June 5, 1933, the Senate and House of Representatives, 73d Congress, 1st session, at 4:30 P.M. approve House Joint Resolution 192 (HJR-192) 192: Joint Resolution to suspend the Gold Standard and abrogate the Gold Clause, Joint resolution to assure uniform value to the coins and currencies of the United States. HJR-192 states, in part, that “Every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the oblige a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in any amount of money of the United States measured thereby, is declared to be against public policy, and no such provision shall be contained in or made with respect to any obligation hereafter incurred. Every obligation, heretofore or hereafter incurred, whether or not any such provisions is contained therein or made with respect thereto, shall be discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar, in any such coin or currency which at the time of payment is legal tender for public and private debts.” HJR-192 goes on to state: “As used in this resolution, the term ‘obligation’ means an obligation (including every obligation of and to the United States, excepting currency) payable in money of the United States; and the term ‘coin or currency’ means coin or currency of the United States, including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations.” HJR-192 superseded Public Law (that which passes as law today is only “color of law”), replacing it with public policy. This eliminated our ability to PAY our debts, allowing only for their DISCHARGE. When we use any commercial paper (checks, drafts, warrants, federal reserve notes, etc.), and accept it as money, we simply pass the unpaid debt attached to the paper on to others, by way of our purchases and transactions. This unpaid debt, under public policy, now carries a public liability for its collection. In other words, all debt is now public.

The United States government, in order to provide necessary goods and services, created a commercial bond (promissory note), by pledging the property, labor, life and body of its citizens, as payment for the debt (bankruptcy). This commercial bond made chattel (property) out of every man, woman and child in the United States. We became nothing more than “human resources” and collateral for the debt. This was without our knowledge and/or our consent. How? It was done through the filing (registration) of our birth certificates! The United States government -actually the elected and appointed administrators of government -took (and still do, to this day) certified copies of all our birth certificates and placed them in the United States Department of Commerce … as registered securities. These securities, each of which carries an estimated $1,000,000 (one million) dollar value, have been (and still are) circulated around the world as collateral for loans, entries on the asset side of ledgers, etc., just like any other security. There’s just one problem, we didn’t authorize it. The United States is a District of Columbia corporation. In Volume 20: Corpus Juris Section 1785 we find “The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a State” (see: NY re: Merriam 36 N.E. 505 1441 S. 0.1973, 14 L. Ed. 287). Since a corporation is a fictitious “person” (it can not speak, see, touch, smell, etc.), it can not, by itself, function in the real world. It needs a conduit, a transmitting utility, a liaison of some sort, to “connect” the fictional person, and fictional world in which it exists, to the real world. LIVING people exist in a real world, not a fictional, virtual world. But government does exist in a fictional world, and can only deal directly with other fictional or virtual persons, agencies, states, etc. In order for a fictional person to deal with real people there must be a connection, a liaison, and a go-between. This can be something as simple as a contract. When both “persons,” the real and the fictional, agree to the terms of a contract, there is a connection, intercourse, dealings, there is a communication, an exchange. There is business! But there is another way for fictional government to deal with the real man and woman: through the use of a representative, a liaison, and the go-between. Who is this go-between, this liaison that connects fictional government to real men and women? It’s a government created shadow, a fictional man or woman … with the same name as ours. This PERSON was created by using our birth certificates as the Manufacturer’s Certificate of Origin (MCO) and the state in which we were born as the “port of entry”. This gave fictional government a fictional PERSON with whom to deal directly. This PERSON is a strawman. THE STRAWMAN STRAMINEUS HOMO: Latin: A man of straw, one of no substance, put forward as bail or surety. This definition comes from Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th. Edition, page 1421. Following the definition of STRAMINEUS HOMO in Black’s we find the next word, Strawman. STRAWMAN: A front, a third party who is put up in name only to take part in a transaction. Nominal party to a transaction; one who acts as an agent for another for the purposes of taking title to real property and executing whatever documents and instruments the principal may direct. Person who purchases property for another to conceal identity of real purchaser or to accomplish some purpose otherwise not allowed. Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines the term “strawman” as: 1: a weak or imaginary opposition set up only to be easily confuted 2: a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction. The Strawman can be summed up as an imaginary, passive stand-in for the real participant; a front; a blind; a person regarded as a nonentity. The Strawman is a “shadow”, a go-between. For quite some time a rather large number of people in this country have known that a man or woman’s name, written in ALL CAPS, or last name first, does not identify real, living people. Taking this one step further, the rules of grammar for the English language have no provisions for the abbreviation of people’s names, i.e. initials are not to be used. As an example, John Adam Smith is correct. ANYTHING else is not correct. Not Smith, John Adam or Smith, John A. or J. Smith or J. A. Smith or JOHN ADAM SMITH or SMITH, JOHN or any other variation. NOTHING, other than John Adam Smith identifies the real, living man. All other appellations identify either a deceased man or a fictitious man: such as a corporation or a STRAWMAN.

March 9,1933, “A day that will go down in history in infamy”, spoken on a different day but applies more surely for this day, by Franklin Roosevelt. For on this day by the “Trading with the Enemies Act” and the declaration of Bankruptcy by the Congress for the United States (A CORPORATION), the American Dream turned into a NIGHTMARE. At this point in history, slowly but surely, the Bankers proceeded by taking over the Federal Court System. The taking over of the American Court System is now complete as the Federal rules can be used in State Courts. Congress having never lawfully Assembled (after Abraham Lincoln dissolved Congress after the Southern states walked out during the debate over the Civil War) and having never been passed into positive law, now sits outside the Constitution, just as the Court System does. This is the reason for the Voting Registration-for registering, you are given the privilege of voting and any one who signs and votes in the Federal Elections (or any election) are voting as CORPORATE ENTITIES and you are agreeing that Congress has the authority to act from a Foreign Jurisdiction. The entire court system is now ruled by and comes under the Foreign Jurisdiction Flag. It has a gold rope, a gold fringe around the edge, a gold eagle or gold symbol on top the flag, and now some courts will make a mockery for the united States Flag by the positioning in a vertical slope. The Powers, knew that all Commerce is ruled by the Law of Contracts (better known as the UCC Law). Where there is no Contract there is no case. The teaching began in school that any Contract you signed is a Valid Contract and that you must fulfill it. This is a good saying as long as it is between two living souls, with all the contract revealed for both parties, and the signatures of both parties thereto. The heretical saying, “Good Credit is the most important thing that you have”. A Valid Contract has four parts: (1) Offer, (2) Consideration, (3) Acceptance, (4) The signatures by all parties for the Contract-Only the parties that have signed the Contract can enforce fulfilling the Contract. Without the consent by both parties, a Lawyer cannot settle any dispute that may arise from a Lawful Contract. Our Creator created man. The Creator gave man the right forming Government. Man gave government the right for forming CORPORATIONS. As man has no right nor the ability for ruling his Creator, the government has no right or the ability for ruling its creator. An illusion is used by the DEMOCRACY CORPORATE GOVERNMENT, and gave man a CORPORATE NAME and made him a Legal Fiction by writing his name in all CAPITAL LETTERS with the middle NAME only an initial. The proper name for a living soul is written in upper and lower case letters, the first and middle name being the Sovereign name and the last name is the family name. The real name for a living soul is I, Me, My, or Myself. Government being a creation of mankind is only a piece of paper. As the government, being a piece of paper, could only create a CORPORATION, which in itself is only a piece of paper; neither being able to sign a lawful contract with a living soul. As all governments are CORPORATIONS themselves, they do not have the ability to sign a lawful contract, for whomever would be so brave, make themselves liable for the execution of the Contract, thereby losing their limited liability to prosecution for breach of Contract.

All CORPORATIONS then must have someone to speak for them, and the government came up with their own solution, The Lawyer, who has been appointed to speak for all Corporations in the Courts they have created. Page 2-3 (The government then came up with a solution to the lawful contract and it is called the “Unilateral Contract”, or a one-signature contract. In their own description of the unilateral contract, it says that they were probably written up by a lawyer or a group of lawyers to commit fraud with the intent to extort monies from the signers. The lawful problem with these contracts aside from the fact that they only have the signature of one party to the contract) is that they have many hidden traps to which the party is not aware of its contents. In many cases such as bank contracts of signatures for checking purposes, the contract is never shown to the depositor. All contracts pertaining to Corporations signed by a one party participant are fraud from their conception and are used to extort monies from the people. They cannot be enforced except with our permission or consent by assent. From the beginning of mankind, they have the right to Contract with whomever or whatever they so choose. The government then set their court system apart from the Constitution and its people and then invites the people to Contract with their Court system under the Foreign Jurisdiction Flag, to allow them to settle their disputes. Of course, since a “person ” to the government is described as a CORPORATION, they then treat any living soul, who contracts with their Court system as a CORPORATION and they are a “Legal Person “, a Slave or Debtor and cannot speak for itself. The first thing that crosses the minds of parties when receiving a letter from a Lawyer, Attorney, Counselor, Esquire stating “You have been sued” is to run to the phone call another lawyer, attorney, counselor, esquire to settle the dispute for the two CORPORATIONS in their court. The Judge protecting the Lawyers, Attorneys, Counselors, Esquires and they in turn protect the court for they are officers of the court. The system is call a “Legal System”, meaning it is legal what they are doing. Legal meaning – with your consent. After gaining your consent it then becomes lawful in their court system for whatever they choose to do to you. Law or Lawfulness is Constitutional in subject matter for no Law can be enacted (or supposed to be) without an enabling clause from the Constitution of the state or the united States of America. The Court does not have a Contract with a party until the party gives the judge his/her name-until that time (the judge) is merely an actor in a black robe.

The contract the court is trying to get with party is to contract the party under the Foreign Jurisdiction flag. (See chapter on the Flag in the Court) As the judges do not file their Oath of Office into their Court Room., thereby acting under Administrative Law-whatever they want it to be. The Laws passed since 1926 have all been signed by the President for- The British Accredited Regency (BAR) from the State of New York, making all laws come under the BAR, so they are nothing more than BAR codes, rules, regulations, statutes, procedures for the CORPORATIONS to follow. The only way you have of making the judge uphold his oath is to file it into the case and restrict him to the law that you want to follow. There are seven demands for Discovery questions to ask all lawyers, attorneys, counselors, esquires: (1) Please produce the legislative act and its implementing regulations that precipitated this cause. (2) Please produce the legislative act that created the office of lawyer, attorney, counselor, esquire. Please give me the address of this office where I may go and get a License for Practicing Law. (3) Please produce a copy of your Oath of Office as an Officer of the Court and where you filed it into Public Record (4) Please produce the contract signed by Myself, Proper name of the living soul, and you (name of the lawyer), in which I agreed to give up My constitutional rights. (5) Please give Me your name, address, and phone number. (6) Please give Me your bond number and your bonding company. (7) Please send to me an acknowledgment that you understand that you have perjured your oath of office and are committing Constructive Treason against the constitution of the united States of America, the State of Texas and the American Peace Flag. Page 2-4 Under this system of consent, a living soul never has to accept the ruling of the court-but they must object at all times to the action being taken. All persons spending time in prison were sent there by their own words. They did not ask for allocution. Example: Judge: Did you receive a fair trial? Answer. “Yes” (The party is just being railroaded). Did your lawyer fight hard for you? Answer “Yes”. Do you feel that 12 years is a reasonable sentence? Answer “Yes”. They have just sentenced themselves to prison. This is aided and abetted by the parties lawyer who has told the party to be nice to the judge in the sentence phase of his “trial” and tells the party that he/she understands the judge is going to probably give him a 12 year sentence instead of the 50 he could get. The other part of the problem is with the Laws or in today’s court-the total lack of laws. The charge and intent are lumped together in one charge and you then cannot plead innocent-you must plead guilty, not guilty, no contest-thereby giving the court jurisdiction. All the courts have been lumped together into one court Administrative/Admiralty and Civil (Contract/Commerce). With the advent of your plea-you go under Administrative-any law they want to use to convict you. In order for a law to be construed as Law it must have an enacting clause from the source the law came from, i.e. King, legislature, etc. All laws proceeding from the state legislatures must have an enacting clause-”Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Texas”. A legislature can only introduce a bill-it cannot introduce a law. It must go through, be approved unanimous by the House, signed by the Leader of the House, be approved by the Senate, signed by the Leader of the Senate, approved and signed by the Governor and the bill becomes Law. Now it is checked against the Constitution to find the enabling clause from it was written. If the Constitution does not allow for the law, then it is void from it inception. Have you ever heard a party can challenge the Enacting part of the Law or the Subject Matter Jurisdiction of the matter he or she is being tried for violating at any time of the trial or upon conviction, while in prison. Usually it is not a Law a party is being tried for breaking but a Code, Rule, or Regulation, or breach of contract. The proper response to “You have been sued” is the Redemption Process orRejection, Returning their Contract unsigned in full accord with Truth In Lending. Never let an Attorney or Lawyer send you any document without “Accepting it for Value” or Rejecting, Returning without a Signature in full accord with Truth In Lending. They may say anything to you in their first letter and you may think it is harmless. A Rattlesnake seems harmless and makes a pretty noise, but is deadly when it strikes. Have you ever heard the phrase “You don’t need to respond”. Do not believe it-Respond with the Redemption process or Reject, Return without a Signature in full accord with Truth In Lending. DON’T CONTRACT WITH THIRD PARTIES-tell them to GET LOST! Tell them that they are FIRED! We now understand that the government gains Power of Attorney over us when we are born and they take our birth certificates and make negotiable instruments out of them. We now know that through the Social Security Administration and the issuance of the Number, we are recorded as a “TRUST” and the living soul is made the TRUSTEE of the “STRAWMAN” the trust created. We now have our own POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FACT and we now know which form to fill our for taxes. WE HAVE ALREADY WON!

Over the years government, through its “public” school system, has managed to pull the wool over our eyes and keep US ignorant of some very important facts. Because all facets of the media (print, radio, television) have an ever-increasing influence in our lives, and because media is controlled (with the issuance of licenses, etc.) by government and its agencies, we have slowly and systematically been led to believe that any form/appellation of our names is, in fact, still us: as long as the spelling is correct. WRONG!

This information has been hidden from you for the Power’s Ill Financial Gain!

You were not informed, with full and open disclosure, what our government officials were planning to do and why. We were never told that government (the United States) was a corporation, a fictitious “person”. We were never told that government had quietly, almost secretly, created a shadow, a STRAWMAN for each and every AMERICAN, so that government could not only “control” the people, but also raise an almost unlimited amount of revenue – so it could continue not just to exist, but to GROW. We were never told that when government deals with the STRAWMAN it is not dealing with real, living, men and women. We were never told, openly and clearly with full disclosure of all the facts, that since June 5, 1933, we have been unable to pay our debts. We were never told that we had been pledged (and our children, and their children, and their children, and on and on) as collateral, mere chattel, for the debt created by government officials who committed treason in doing so. We were never told that they quietly and cleverly changed the rules, even the game itself, and that the world we perceive as real is in fact fictional -and it’s all for their benefit. We were never told that the STRAWMAN -a fictional person, a creature of the state -is subject to all the codes, statutes, rules, regulations, ordinances, etc. decreed by government, but that WE, the real man and woman, are not. We were never told we were being treated as property, as slaves (albeit comfortably for some); while living in the land of the free -and that we could, easily, walk away from the fraud.

Everything, Since June 1933, Operates in COMMERCE!

Commerce is based on agreement, on contract. Government has an implied agreement with the STRAWMAN (government’s creation) and the STRAWMAN is subject to government rule, as we illustrated above. But when we, the real flesh and blood man and woman, step into their “process” we become the “surety” for the fictitious STRAWMAN. Reality and fiction are reversed. We then become liable for the debts, liabilities and obligations of the STRAWMAN, relinquishing our real (protected) character as we stand up for the fictional STRAWMAN.

First, know the law and then jump off the cliff!

HOLD DOWN THE CTRL KEY ON YOUR KEYBOARD THEN PUSH THE D KEY TO BOOKMARKTHIS SITE!

So is there anyway out of this nightmare? You bet there is! Let’s begin by regaining control of this  “ALTERNATE VERSION OF YOU”,  THE ‘STRAWMAN’ the government has been using  for gain and give it’s control to you!

Next Page—> Let’s see how this STRAWMAN THING WORKS!

THE STRAWMAN

Your STRAWMAN is an artificial person and ENTITY. IT IS A CORPORATION! IT IS AN ALTERNATE VERSION OF ‘YOU’ CREATED ON A BIRTH CERTIFICATE FOR ILL-COMMERCIAL GAIN by A REAL SHADOW GOVERNMENT AND A WORLD BANK! THIS IS NOT A CONSIPIRACY, BUT A TRUE VERIFIABLE FACT!

GO RESEARCH COLONEL EDWARD MANDELL HOUSE AND DECIDE FOR YOURSELF!

I CAN SHOW YOU IN 5 MINUTES HOW TO LOOk UP YOUR ALTERNATE SELF[BIRTH CERTIFICATE BONDING #] ON FIDELITY.COM AND WATCH CORPORATIONS LIKE WALMART, MCDONALD’S, MICROSOFT, AND TENS OF THOUSANDS OF OTHER CORPORATIONS AND GOVERNMENTS ALL AROUND THE WORLD TRADING YOU LIVE AS A SLAVE ON THE STOCK MARKET FOR BILLIONS OF DOLLARS! WHAT DOES THIS SAY TO YOU ABOUT YOR VALUE AND MORE IMPORTANTLY ABOUT WHO YOU ARE?

I KNOW THAT IS SOME FREAKY, EVIL AND HEAVY STUFF, BUT GO AND DO THE RESEARCH AND SEE IF THIS IS THE TRUTH!

HOWEVER THIS MAKES YOU FEEL, YOU MUST PRAY TO YOUR FATHER [THIS IS SERIOUS SO PLEASE GO AND DO IT NOW!] AND ALWAYS BE A MAN AND WOMAN OF PEACE, HONOR, AND LOVE! ALSO, KNOW THAT THIS WHOLE REDEMPTION PROCESS IS ABOUT BRINGING THIS TO A DEAD STOP AT ONCE, SO FEAR NOT! THE FULL MEASURE OF THE CHRIST IS YOUR POWER!

NOW, MEET YOUR ALTERNATE IDENTITY:

Your straw man (Strawman) is an artificial person created by law at the of your birth, the inscription of an ALL-CAPITAL LETTERS NAME on your birth certificate/document, which is a document of title and a negotiable instrument. Your lawful, Christian name of birthright was replaced with a legal, corporate name of deceit and fraud. Your name in upper and lower case letters (Jane Mary Doe) has been answering when the legal person, your name in ALL-CAPTIAL LETTERS (JANE MARY DOE), is addressed, and therefore the two have been recognized as being one and the same. When, you Jane Mary Doe, the lawful being distinguish yourself as another party than the legal person, the two will be separated.

Legally, since your birth your artificial person, has been considered a slave or indentured servant to the various federal, provincial and municipal governments via your STATE-issued, STATE-created birth certificate in the name of your all-caps person. Your birth certificate was issued so that  the issuer could claim “exclusive” title to the legal person created. This was further compounded when you voluntarily obtained a driver’s license and a SSN (Social Security Number). The state even owns your personal and private life through your STATE-issued marriage license/certificate issued in the all-caps names. You have had no rights in birth, marriage, nor will you have them even in death unless you re-capture your straw man. (The names on tombstones in cemeteries are in all-caps.) The STATE holds the title to your legal person it created via your birth certificate, until Jane Mary Doe, the rightful owner, the holder in due course of the instrument, that is yourself, reclaims/redeems it.

On April 5, 1933, then President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, under Executive Order, issued April 5, 1933, declared: “All persons are required to deliver on or before May 1, 1933 all Gold Coin, Gold Bullion, & Gold Certificates now owned by them to a Federal Reserve Bank, branch or agency, or to any member bank of the Federal Reserve System.”

James A. Farley, Postmaster General at that time, required each postmaster in the country to post a copy of the Executive Order in a conspicuous place within each branch of the Post Office. On the bottom of the posting was the following:

CRIMINAL PENALTIES for VIOLATION of EXECUTIVE ORDER

$10, 000 fine or 10 years imprisonment, or both, as provided in Section 9 of the order.

Section 9 of the order reads as follows: “Whosoever willfully violates any provisions of this Executive Order or of these regulations or of any rule, regulation or license issued thereunder may be fined not more than $10,000, or if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both; & any officer, director or agency of any corporation who knowingly participates in any such violation may be punished by a like fine, imprisonment, or both.

NOTE: Stated within a written document received September 17, 1997, from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, Office of the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Richard L. Shiffin, in response to a FOIA, was the following: “A fact that is frequently overlooked is that Executive Orders & proclamations of the President normally have no direct effect upon private persons or their property, & instead, normally constitute only directives or instructions to officers or employees of the Federal Government. The exception is those cases in which the President is expressly authorized or required by laws enacted by the Congress to issue an Executive order or proclamation dealing with the legal rights or obligations of members of the public. Such as issuance of Selective Service Regulations, establishment of boards to investigate certain labor disputes, & establishment of quotas or fees with respect to certain imports into this country.”

Note: it seems rather obvious that President Franklin D. Roosevelt was not “expressly authorized or required” to “issue an Executive Order or proclamation” demanding the public (private) to relinquish their privately held gold.

The order (proclamation) issued by Roosevelt was an undisciplined act of treason. Two months after the Executive Order, on June 5, 1933, the Senate & House of Representatives, 73d Congress, 1st session, at 4:30 p.m. approve House Joint Resolution (HJR) 192: Joint Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard & Abrogate The Gold Clause, Joint resolution to assure uniform value to the coins & currencies of the United States.

HJR-192 states, in part, that “Every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the oblige a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in any amount of money of the United States measured thereby, is declared to be against public policy, & no such provision shall be contained in or made with respect to any obligation hereafter incurred. Every obligation, heretofore or hereafter incurred, whether or not any such provisions is contained therein or made with respect thereto, shall be discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar, in any such coin or currency which at the time of payment is legal tender for public & private debts.”

HJR-192 goes on to state: “As used in this resolution, the term ‘obligation’ means an obligation (including every obligation of & to the United States, excepting currency) payable in money of the United States; & the term ‘coin or currency’ means coin or currency of the United States, including Federal Reserve notes & circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks & national banking associations.”

HJR-192 superseded Public Law (what passes as law today is only “color of law”), replacing it with public policy. This eliminated our ability to PAY our debts, allowing only for their DISCHARGE. When we use any commercial paper (checks, drafts, warrants, federal reserve notes, etc.), & accept it as money, we simply pass the unpaid debt attached to the paper on to others, by way of our purchases & transactions. This unpaid debt, under public policy, now carries a public liability for its collection. In other words, all debt is now public.

The United States government, in order to provide necessary goods & services, created a commercial bond (promissory note), by pledging the property, labor, life & body of its citizens, as payment for the debt (bankruptcy). This commercial bond made chattel (property) out of every man, woman & child in the United States. We became nothing more than “human resources” & collateral for the debt. This was without our knowledge &/or our consent. How? It was done through the filing (registration) of our birth certificates!

The United States government -actually the elected & appointed administrators of government -took (& still do, to this day) certified copies of all our birth certificates & placed them in the United States Department of Commerce … as registered securities. These securities, each of which carries an estimated $1,000,000 (one million) dollar value, have been (& still are) circulated around the world as collateral for loans, entries on the asset side of ledgers, etc., just like any other security. There’s just one problem, we didn’t authorize it.

The United States is a District of Columbia corporation. In Volume 20: Corpus Juris Sec. § 1785 we find “The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a State” (see: NY re: Merriam 36 N.E. 505 1441 S. 0.1973, 14 L. Ed. 287). Since a corporation is a fictitious “person” (it can not speak, see, touch, smell, etc.), it can not, by itself, function in the real world. It needs a conduit, a transmitting utility, a liaison of some sort, to “connect” the fictional person, & fictional world in which it exists, to the real world.

LIVING people, exist in a real world, not a fictional, virtual world. But government does exist in a fictional world, & can only deal directly with other fictional or virtual persons, agencies, states, etc.. In order for a fictional person to deal with real people there must be a connection, a liaison, & a go-between. This can be something as simple as a contract. When both “persons,” the real & the fictional, agree to the terms of a contract, there is a connection, intercourse, dealings, there is a communication, an exchange. There is business! But there is another way for fictional government to deal with the real man & woman: through the use of a representative, a liaison, & the go-between. Who is this go-between, this liaison that connects fictional government to real men & women? It’s a government created shadow, a fictional man or woman … with the same name as ours.

This PERSON was created by using our birth certificates as the MCO (manufacturer’s certificate of origin) & the state in which we were born as the “port of entry”. This gave fictional government a fictional PERSON with whom to deal directly. This PERSON is a straw man (strawman).

STRAMINEUS HOMO: Latin: A man of straw, one of no substance, put forward as bail or surety. This definition comes from Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th. Edition, page 1421. Following the definition of STRAMINEUS HOMO in Black’s we find the next word, straw man (Strawman). STRAWMAN: A front, a third party who is put up in name only to take part in a transaction. Nominal party to a transaction; one who acts as an agent for another for the purposes of taking title to real property & executing whatever documents & instruments the principal may direct. Person who purchases property for another to conceal identity of real purchaser or to accomplish some purpose otherwise not allowed.

Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines the term “strawman” as: 1: a weak or imaginary opposition set up only to be easily confuted 2: a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction. The straw man (Strawman) can be summed up as an imaginary, passive stand-in for the real participant; a front; a blind; a person regarded as a nonentity. The straw man (Strawman) is a “shadow”, a go-between. For quite some time a rather large number of people in this country have known that a man or woman’s name, written in ALL CAPS, or last name first, does not identify real, living people. Taking this one step further, the rules of grammar for the English language have no provisions for the abbreviation of people’s names, i.e. initials are not to be used. As an example, John Adam Smith is correct. ANYTHING else is not correct. Not Smith, John Adam or Smith, John A. or J. Smith or J. A. Smith or JOHN ADAM SMITH or SMITH, JOHN or any other variation. NOTHING, other than John Adam Smith identifies the real, living man. All other appellations identify either a deceased man or a fictitious man: such as a corporation or a STRAW MAN (STRAWMAN).

Over the years government, through its “public” school system, has managed to pull the wool over our eyes & keep US ignorant of some very important facts. Because all facets of the media (print, radio, television) have an ever-increasing influence in our lives, & because media is controlled (with the issuance of licenses, etc.) by government & its agencies, we have slowly & systematically been led to believe that any form/appellation of our names is, in fact, still us: as long as the spelling is correct. WRONG!

We were never told, with full & open disclosure, what our government officials were planning to do & why. We were never told that government (the United States) was a corporation, a fictitious “person”. We were never told that government had quietly, almost secretly, created a shadow, a STRAW MAN (STRAWMAN) for each & every AMERICAN, so that government could not only “control” the people, but also raise an almost unlimited amount of revenue – so it could continue not just to exist, but to GROW. We were never told that when government deals with the STRAW MAN (STRAWMAN) it is not dealing with real, living, men & women. We were never told, openly & clearly with full disclosure of all the facts, that since June 5, 1933, we have been unable to pay our debts. We were never told that we had been pledged (& our children, & their children, & their children, & on & on) as collateral, mere chattel, for the debt created by government officials who committed treason in doing so. We were never told that they quietly & cleverly changed the rules, even the game itself, & that the world we perceive as real is in fact fictional -& it’s all for their benefit. We were never told that the STRAW MAN (STRAWMAN) -a fictional person, a creature of the state -is subject to all the codes, statutes, rules, regulations, ordinances, etc. decreed by government, but that WE, the real man & woman, are not. We were never told we were being treated as property, as slaves (albeit comfortably for some), while living in the land of the free -& that we could, easily, walk away from the fraud.

WE WERE NEVER TOLD, WE WERE BEING ABUSED!

There’s something else you should know: Everything, since June 1933, operates in COMMERCE! Commerce is based on agreement, contract. Government has an implied agreement with the straw man (Strawman) (government’s creation) & the straw man (Strawman) is subject to government rule, as we illustrated above. But when we, the real flesh & blood man & woman, step into their “process” we become the “surety” for the fictional straw man (Strawman). Reality & fiction are reversed. We then become liable for the debts, liabilities & obligations of the straw man (Strawman), relinquishing our real (protected) character as we stand up for the fictional straw man (Strawman).

So that we can once again place the straw man (Strawman) in the fictional world & ourselves in the real world (with all our “shields” in place against fictional government) we must send a nonnegotiable (private) “Charge Back” & a nonnegotiable “Bill of Exchange” to the United States Secretary of Treasury, along with a copy of our birth certificate, the evidence, the MCO, of the straw man (Strawman). By doing this we discharge our portion of the public debt, releasing US, the real man, from the debts, liabilities & obligations of the straw man (Strawman). Those debts, liabilities & obligations exist in the fictional commercial world of “book entries”, on computers &/or in paper ledgers. It is a world of “digits” & “notes”, not of money & substance. Property of the real man once again becomes tax exempt & free from levy, as it must be in accord with HJR-192.

Sending the nonnegotiable Charge Back & Bill of Exchange accesses our Treasury Direct Account (TDA). What is our TDA? Let’s go to Title 26 USC & take a look at section 163(h)(3)(B)(ii), $1,000,000 limitation: “The aggregate amount treated as acquisition indebtedness for any period shall not exceed $1,000,000 ($500,000 in the case of a married individual filing a separate return).”

This $1,000,000 (one million) account is for the straw man (Strawman), the fictional “person” with the name in all caps &/or last name first. It is there for the purpose of making book entries, to move figures, “digits” from one side of ledgers to the other. Without constant movement a shark will die & quite ironically, like the shark, there must also be constant movement in commerce, or it too will die. Figures, digits, the entries in ledgers must move from asset side to debit side & back again, or commerce dies. No movement, no commerce.

The fictional person of government can only function in a fictional commercial world, one where there is no real money, only fictional funds … mere entries, figures, & digits.

A presentment from fictional government -from traffic citation to criminal charges -is a negative, commercial “claim” against the straw man (Strawman). This “claim” takes place in the commercial, fictional world of government. “Digits” move from one side of your straw man (Strawman) account to the other, or to a different account. This is today’s commerce.

In the past we have addressed these “claims” by fighting them in court, with one “legal process” or another, & failed. We have played the futile, legalistic, dog-&-pony show -a very clever distraction -while the commerce game played on.

But what if we refused to play dog-&-pony, & played the commerce game instead? What if we learned how to control the flow & movement of entries, figures, & digits, for our own benefit? Is that possible? And if so, how? How can the real man in the real world, function in the fictional world in which the commerce game exists?

When in commerce do as commerce does, use the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)? The UCC1 Financing Statement is the one contract in the world that can NOT be broken & it’s the foundation of the Accepted For Value process. The power of this document is awesome.

Since the TDA exists for the straw man (Strawman) -who, until now, has been controlled by government – WE can gain control (& ownership) of the straw man (Strawman) by first activating the TDA & then filing an UCC-1 Financing Statement. This does two things for US.

First, by activating the TDA we gain limited control over the funds in the account. This allows US to also move entries, figures, & digits … for OUR benefit.

Secondly, by properly filing an UCC-1 Financing Statement we can become the holder in due course of the straw man (Strawman). This gives us virtual ownership of the government created entity. So what? What does it all mean?

Remember earlier we mentioned that a presentment from government or one of its agents or agencies was a negative commercial claim against the straw man (Strawman) (& the Strawman’s account, the TDA)? Remember we told you entries, figures, & digits moved from one side of the account to the other, or to a different account? Well now, with the straw man (Strawman) under our control, government has no access to the TDA & they also lose their go-between, their liaison, their “connection” to the real, living man & woman. From now on, when presented with a “claim” (presentment) from government, we will agree with it (this removes the “controversy”) & we will ACCEPT IT FOR VALUE. By doing this we remove the negative claim against our account & become the “holder in due course” of the presentment. As holder in due course you can require the sworn testimony of the presenter of the “claim” (under penalty of perjury) & request the account be properly adjusted.

It’s all business, a commercial undertaking, & the basic procedure is not complicated. In fact, it’s fairly simple. We just have to remember a few things, like: this is not a “legal” procedure -we’re not playing dog-&-pony. This is commerce, & we play by the rules of commerce. We accept the “claim”, become the holder in due course, & challenge whether or not the presenter of the claim had/has the proper authority (the Order) to make the claim (debit our account) in the first place. When they cannot produce the Order (they never can, it was never issued) we request the account be properly adjusted (the charge, the “claim ” goes away).

If they don’t adjust the account a request is made for the bookkeeping records showing where the funds in question were assigned. This is done by requesting the Fiduciary Tax Estimate & the Fiduciary Tax Return for this claim. Since the claim has been accepted for value & is prepaid, & our TDA account is exempt from levy, the request for the Fiduciary Tax Estimate & the Fiduciary Tax Return is valid because the information is necessary in determining who is delinquent &/or making claims on the account. If there is no record of the Fiduciary Tax Estimate & the Fiduciary Tax Return, we then request the individual tax estimates & individual tax returns to determine if there is any delinquency.

If we receive no favorable response to the above requests, we will then file a currency report on the amount claimed/assessed against our account & begin the commercial process that will force them to either do what’s required or lose everything they own -except for the clothing they are wearing at the time. This is the power of contracts (commerce) & it should be mentioned, at least this one time, that a contract overrides the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, & any other document other than another contract. We should also mention that no process of law -”color” of law under present codes, statutes, rules, regulations, ordinances, etc. – can operate upon you, no agent &/or agency of government (including courts) can gain jurisdiction over you, WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT. You, (we) are not within their fictional commercial venue.

The Accepted for Value process, however, gives us the ability to deal with “them” -through the use of our transmitting utility/go-between, the straw man (Strawman) -& hold them accountable in their own commercial world, for any action(s) they attempt to take against us. Without a proper Order, & now we know they’re not in possession of such a document, they must leave us alone … or pay the consequences.

Yes, this process IS powerful.

Yes, it CAN set us free from government oppression & control.

But remember: “What goes around, comes around”. “Do unto others, as you have others do unto you.” It’s simple, folks, DO NOT ABUSE THIS PROCESS … if you do it could come around & bite you!

Let’s take back our power [BECOMING SOVEREIGN] now by capturing and controlling this ‘STRAWMAN’ for our benefit and not for the STATE’s Benefit!

This easily can be done in a few days by filling out a one page form and typing up a two support documents and mailing it all in regualer mail!

LET’S WORK ON THIS NOW!

Swom is a social networking site that pays you by socializing! You get paid by talking to members! You get paid even by asking questions!”

Swom stands for Super Word-of-Mouth and is a social networking site for home-business owners and internet marketers. Swom is like Facebook that allows you to socialize and interact with people. But unlike most social networking sites when you socialize in SWOM you will be paid… Yes, you heard it right! SWOM pays you when you talk to the members whatever be the topic, may it be just a simple hello or raising any questions about anything so long as you abide by the terms of use and policies of Swom.

I joined Swom last February 16, 2010 out of curiosity. Swom was still on pre-launch at that time.

When I checked the Compensation Plan I was blown away when I discovered the HUGE INCOME potential in working it out. I then contemplated and figured out a way to make it work for me. Soon enough I found myself liking the system and appreciated the way I am compensated by just interacting with my like-minded business oriented friends. Since then, I am proud to confess that I am a member of the Swom addicts club.

How can you make money with SWOM?

There are so many ways to make money with Swom. But there’s one bonus pool that attracts most of my attention, the Community Participation Bonus. I never find this kind of bonus in any other similar paid social networking sites.
The Community Participation Bonus will allow gold members to make money by participating and interacting(socializing) with other members. It is a way of earning an income even without referring anyone. So communicating with fellow members is never a waste of time!

In this bonus, the more you talk, the more you share, the MORE you make money.
Aside from the Community Participation Bonus, there’s another bonus that is truly fantastic, the Gold Evangelist Bonus. A whooping 20% of company-wide Gold membership commissions are paid into this bonus!
Actually, Swom has two types of memberships. The free members, also called the blue members and the paid members, also called the Gold members.

As a gold member you can get a share from the Gold Evangelist Bonus, if you connect with blue members(regardless of whoever are their sponsors) and convince them to become gold. Once the blue member upgrades to gold, even at a later time, you still get a share.

With these two bonuses, you can make money while having fun. You don’t need to recruit anyone to qualify for this bonus.
These are some of the reasons why there are lots of Swom addicts arising and that doesn’t exclude me.

I believe that these are also the reasons why there are so many nice and hospitable people in Swom community.
Another way to make money is by inviting free or paid members to Swom. If you are a gold member and you invited another gold member, you will earn $15 first month and $5 monthly residual income starting on the 2nd month.

Sharing your business to SWOM members.

Most of the members of the Swom community are Internet Marketers. These internet marketers are open and are always looking for more profitable business to promote. If you have a good and profitable business, these members would love to hear it.

As a Swom member, there’s a space in your back office specially prepared for your business. You can post as many businesses as you can and their profile.

While most people, young and old nowadays, love the concept of socializing from various social networks like Facebook, MySpace and many others SWOM can be the BEST venue not just for socializing but most importantly, EARNING. In SWOM you are absolutely utilizing your time and effort properly and productively while making friends worldwide. Try it and have fun earning while swomming!

Start SWOMMING Now!

Click here to join Swom!!

Ideas know no borders. They are not inhibited by considerations of space. They can eat through the limits of time. They grow and spread by individual decisions and actions that no one can control. In the end, governments cannot manage ideas, and are even rendered powerless by them.

I would like to share an example of how this works based on my recent trip to Brazil.

The background takes us to fifty-one years ago, when Mises travelled to Argentina to give a series of lectures. He helped cultivate the seeds of freedom in a region increasingly under the sway of government control and intervention. His lectures were published, translated into many languages, and continue to wield influence among new generations.

Massive trees from these seeds are thriving today in Latin America. This past month, Brazilian financial and ideological entrepreneur Helio Beltrão invited a delegation from the Mises Institute to the formal inauguration of the new Instituto Ludwig von Mises Brasil. The idea was to give this organization a wonderful kick start toward becoming another institution of revolutionary ideological impact, flourishing in Latin America as the Mises Institute has in the US.

Mises.org.br is already substantial and serious. I was there for MisesBrasil’s sponsorship of the first Austrian economics conference in the country’s history. Hundreds of young people gathered in Porto Allegre to hear Joe Salerno, Mark Thornton, Tom Woods, and me from the US, and Antony Mueller, Rodrigo Constantino, Fabio Barbieri, and Urbiratan Iorio from Brazil. David and Patri Friedman were also with us.

The moderators were Helio and Globo TV journalist Maria Beltrão. There were simultaneous English-Portuguese and Portuguese-English translations, and the entire program was webcast as well. All talks will be archived on the site, with subtitles in English or Portuguese as required.

Among many other projects, MisesBrasil is also bringing back into print the excellent Portuguese translation of Human Action, as well as other books of Mises. Already in print is the translation of Economic Policy, those very lectures by Mises, with the far better title in Portuguese of Six Lessons.

This year, the 23rd conference of the allied Liberty Forum, sponsored by the Institute for Entrepreneurial Studies, was held at the Pontifical Catholic University of Porto Alegre. The theme was the life and work of Ludwig von Mises. The 5,500 students in attendance each got a copy of Six Lessons. The highpoint of the conference was the presentation of the prestigious award for leadership in liberty to Helio, and the talk he gave was an intellectual call to arms. The love for liberty and learning was palpable, but so was the desire for practical action. As in the whole history of liberalism, that means finding a way to throw off the yoke of central power.

Thus is there secessionist sentiment alive in Brazil. The students, faculty, and business people ritualistically stood for the national anthem, but they sang movingly the anthem of Rio Grande do Sul, the southernmost state whose capital is Porto Alegre. All hail organically formed associations and down with coerced collectives! I also learned that the state of São Paulo – we North Americans flew into its capital city, a great commercial hub – fought a war for independence against the central government and its new dictator and constitution in 1934.

There is a very impressive monument to the secessionists, and a tradition. And at Helio’s conference Patri Friedman talked in part about secession, the basis of his Seasteading Institute. And I was moved to see how his father David sometimes resembles Murray Rothbard. Brazil’s taxes – a gigantic VAT being the worst – are even higher than what Obama plans. The interventionism in this country is truly horrific. The tariffs are abusive too. But a warm, well-mannered, and generous people can help make up for a cold, cruel state. And I was impressed by not having to take my shoes off at the airport, nor my laptop out of its case; by free-flowing shower heads; and by restaurant menus that listed lower prices for women than for men, to mention just a few of the Brazilian things outlawed in the Land of the Free.

Thanks also to Graziella Beltrão for one of the great parties in the history of the Western hemisphere, held in Helio’s and Graziella’s spectacular home, in honor of Joe, Mark, and me (Tom not having arrived yet), complete with traditional Brazilian food, band, and singer. Also impressive were Helio’s “Taliban” (as they are kiddingly known), the smart young Misesian-Rothbardian-LRC’ers who aide him with the Instituto. Many thanks to Cristiano Chiocca, Leandro Roque, and Fernando and Roberto Chiocca, among many, for all their help. I was also pleased to see none of the anti-religious prejudice so common to the US movement. Instead there is tolerance. One person had complained about the appropriate inclusion of Rothbard as well as Mises on MisesBrasil’s handsome crest. Wait until he sees the crest of the new Swedish Mises Institute – founded at our conference in Salamanca in discussions with Helio. It features Mises and Hoppe.

This kind of movement, the result of vast amounts of human energy and inspiration, cannot be cobbled together by a government bureaucracy, nor can it be stopped by one. It is the manifestation of human energy, applied with vision and entrepreneurship, driven forward by brilliant technique and hard work, and with its purpose secure in a burning passion for liberty and truth. We have long known that Austro-libertarianism is the only truly international economic-political movement outside of Marxism.

How thrilling to see a borderless boom, not Fed backed, but truth based. This is a worldwide struggle, and now especially, we must work together, in the tradition of Mises and Rothbard, for the good of all.

April 16, 2010 Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail], former publications editor to Ludwig von Mises and congressional chief of staff to Ron Paul, is founder and chairman of the Mises Institute, executor for the estate of Murray N. Rothbard, and editor of LewRockwell.com. See his books. Copyright © 2010 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Easy. Safe. No risk.

SOCIAL SECURITY TAX AND TAX WITHHOLDING ARE VOLUNTARY WITHIN THE 50 STATES

The Social Security Act, which is part of Title 42 of the United States Code, was enacted in 1935 as a U.S. government-sponsored, voluntary pension program for the benefit of individuals who wished to VOLUNTARILY participate in the program. The Act is administered by the Social Security Administration which handles the administration and payment of benefits under he provisions of the law.

The tax upon which the old age benefits is based is collected by the Internal Revenue Service under the provisions of Title 26 of the United States Code, otherwise known as the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). Monies collected by the IRS are not sent to the Social Security Administration to fund their administrative and disbursement activities but rather end up in the general fund along with other taxes collected. An accounting “gimmick” is created to lead the public to believe that the monies paid in are held in a trust fund.

Although it may be technically correct that a so-called trust fund exists, the truth is that it contains no monies or other assets only governmental I.O.U.’s promising to pay money to itself. Monies disbursed by SSA must be appropriated by Congress each year as needed. Since no contractual obligation exists for the payment of any benefits, technically the benefits could be terminated at any time if Congress did not appropriate the funds.

This paper deals primarily with those statutes relative to the imposition and collection of the tax. References to code sections are those in Title 26 of the United States Code, which is a codification of the statutes at large as enacted by the Congress of the United States. All code sections shown herein are copied directly from Title 26, United States Code precisely as printed therein.

All Internal Revenue taxes, Including the personal and corporate income taxes, self-employment taxes, as well as the so-called Social Security tax, are imposed and collected under Title 26, United States Code. The Social Security tax is imposed by the code sections in chapter 21, subtitle C of the IRC titled: “FEDERAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS ACT”.

Before examining the actual wording contained In these sections, it is important to understand that courts have repeatedly held that a statute means only that which is stated in the statute and nothing more. Southerland’s Rules of Statutory Construction, an authoritative legal guidebook, under section 66.01 titled ‘Strict Construction of Statutes Creating Tax Liabilities” explains the limited application of tax laws. The guidebook refers to the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Gould v. Gould, 245 US 151, which states:

“In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions by implication beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operation so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt, they are construed most strongly against the government and in favor of the citizen.”

So the Supreme Court tells us that the IR code sections mean only that which is stated; nothing else can be added to that which is stated in the code section. With this Supreme Court ruling In mind, lets look at the wording of sections 3101(a) and 3111(a) which are imposition statutes for the (so-called Social Security) FICA tax – section 3101(a) applying to employEES and 3111(a) to employERS respectively.

(CAPITALIZATION for emphasis is added to certain phrases, code sections and court decisions in this article.)

Sec. 3101. Rate of Tax.

(a) Old-Age, survivors, and disability Insurance.

In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax EQUAL TO THE FOLLOWING PERCENTAGES OF THE WAGES (as defined In section 3121(a)) received by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121(b))-

Sec. 3111. Rate of Tax.

(a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance.

In addition to other taxes, there Is hereby imposed on every employer an excise tax, with respect to having individuals in his employ, EQUAL TO THE FOLLOWING PERCENTAGES OF THE WAGES (as defined In section 3121(a)) paid by him with respect to employment (as defined In section 3121(b))-

The popular mistaken belief is that the FICA tax, which is imposed on the income of “employees” under section 3101(a), is a “wage” tax. However, a reading of section 3101(a) shows clearly that the tax is not, in fact, a WAGE tax but rather is imposed on “income” which is MEASURED by “wages”. Hence, the FICA tax is simply another INCOME tax. However what is of vital importance in both these sections is the limited application of the terms “wages” (as defined in section 3121(a)) and “employment” (as defined in section 3121(b)). The definitions of these terms create a TERRITORIAL limitation on the application of the tax as we will see.

Section 3121 states:

Sec. 3121. Definitions.

(a) Wages.

For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration for EMPLOYMENT, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include -

Note that the term “wages” identifies monies paid for the activity identified by the term “employment” which is defined in section 3121(b) the essential part of which is reproduced as follows:

Sec. 3121 (b). Employment.

For purposes of this chapter, the term “employment” means any service, of whatever nature, performed (A) by an EMPLOYEE for the person employing him, irrespective of the citizenship or residence of either, (I) WITHIN THE UNITED STATES, or (II) on or in connection with an American vessel or American aircraft under a contract of service which is entered into WITHIN THE UNITED STATES or during the performance of which and while the employee Is employed on the vessel or aircraft It touches at a port in THE UNITED STATES….

As shown, the term “employment” means a service performed by one Identified by the term “employee” within the “United States …”. United States is also a term used in this chapter as defined in section 3121(e)(2)

Sec. 3121(e)(2).

For purposes of this chapter -

(2) United States. The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa.

The definition of the term “United States” lists those areas in which the activity described by the term “employment” takes place. The definition lists ONLY the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa as the areas in which the tax imposed by this chapter applies. Before examining the provisions of this law, it is essential to understand the use of words as “terms’ when used in laws.

When words are used as legal terms in order to establish their clear and unambiguous meanings, precise definitions of those terms are always included in the law. These definitions explain the exact meanings of terms used in the IRC. As quoted earlier in this article, the Supreme Court in the decision of Gould v. Gould established that, in taxing statutes, definitions of terms used in the statutes cannot be expanded by implication. Nothing can be added to the definition of a term; it means only that which is stated, regardless of any belief to the contrary.

At first, it may be hard to believe that the definition of the term “United States” could be limited to mean ONLY the four island possessions of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa. But that is exactly what this definition means because statutes mean ONLY that which is stated, nothing more, as set forth by the Supreme Court in Gould v. Gould, already discussed. Also, there are other decisions where the U.S. Supreme Court has addressed the principle of the limited meaning of statues.

The U.S. Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) explained two such decisions as follows:

“We begin our interpretation by reading the statutes and regulations for their plain meaning. The plain meaning rule has its’ origin in U.S. v. Missouri Pacific Railroad, 278 U.S. 269 (1929). There the Supreme Court stated that “where the language of an enactment is clear and construction according to its’ terms does not lead to absurd or impracticable consequences, the WORDS EMPLOYED ARE TO BE TAKEN AS THE FINAL EXPRESSION OF THE MEANING INTENDED” … The principle was more recently affirmed in Dickinson V. New Banner Institute, Inc., 460 U.S. 103,103 S.C. 986, 74 L.Ed.2d 845 (1983), rehearing denied, 461 US. 911,103 S.C. 1887,76 LEd.2d 815 (1983), where the Court stated, “In determining the scope of a statute, one is to look first at its language. If the language is unambiguous, … IT IS TO BE REGARDED AS CONCLUSIVE UNLESS THERE IS A CLEARLY EXPRESSED LEGISLATIVE INTENT TO THE CONTRARY.” United States V. Varlet, 780 F2d 758 on P.761(9th Cirri.) (1986)

Also, code section 3121(e)(2) uses the term “includes” which, in law, is a word of CONFINEMENT and not EXPANSION. This is exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court said in the decision of Montello Salt V. Utah, 221 U.S. at page 455 wherein they stated:

“‘Include’ or the participial form thereof, is defined ‘to comprise within’; ‘to hold’; ‘to contain’; ‘to shut up’; and synonyms are ‘contain’; ‘enclose’; ‘comprise’; comprehend’; ‘embrace’; ‘involve”‘.

This U.S. Supreme Court decision and others in support of its ruling that “includes” is a word of limitation also support the Court’s decision in Gold v. Gold that there can be no broadening of the statute by implication. Legislative drafters in the Internal Revenue Service who write the tax bills know very well this “plain meaning rule” of statutory interpretation.

If the term “United States” could constitutionally include the 50 STATES OF THE UNION, they would have specifically included them. As an example of this, code section 4612, which relates to a tax on crude oil, defines the term “United States” as: “the FIFTY STATES, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any possession of the United States, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and the trust territory of the Pacific Islands.”

This shows that when the term “United States” means the fifty states of the union, it says so. Consequently, it is very clear that the term “United States”, when used to describe the areas where the “Social Security” tax applies, means, and IS LIMITED TO, the four island possessions which are the only areas listed in the term’s definition. Therefore, according to the wording of the law itself, the FICA tax does not apply within the fifty states of the Union.

This makes sense when one understands the limitations of the direct taxing authority of the Federal government as contained in the Constitution under Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4, both of which prohibit any Federal direct tax within the states of the union other than those laid on the fifty state governments in proportion to their populations.

The FICA tax is administered by the IRS as if it were a direct tax on individuals. To be constitutional, any direct tax on individuals must be imposed by law ONLY OUTSIDE the fifty states of the Union: i.e., only in the four island possessions despite the IRS’ deception of the public into falsely believing the tax applies WITHIN the fifty states of the union.

IR code section 7655 also supports the limited meaning of the term “United States” as respects both the self-employment tax imposed in chapter 2 of the IRC as well as the FICA tax imposed in chapter 21. Section 7655 states:

Sec. 7655. Cross references.

(a) Imposition of tax in possessions. For provisions imposing tax in POSSESSIONS, see -

(1) Chapter 2, relating to self-employment tax;

(2) Chapter 21, relating to the tax under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act.

Clearly this section also shows the application of both the self-employment tax and the FICA tax imposed under chapters 2 and 21 to be limited to “possessions” (Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, and America Samoa as listed in IR code section 3121(e}(2) defining the TERM “United States”).

SECTION 1402(d) – THE KEY TO UNDERSTANDING THE GEOGRAPHICAL LIMITATIONS OF CHAPTER 24 – WITHHOLDING OF TAX

In the code there are many definitions that are limited in their applications by words such as “for purposes of this chapter”, “for purposes of this sub-chapter” and “for purposes of this sub-part”. In contrast, section 1402 contains definitions of terms upon which there are NO SUCH LIMITATIONS upon their application, so the definitions therein apply THROUGHOUT the ENTIRE IRC. Section 1402(d) states as follows

Sec. 1402(d). Employee and wages.

The term “employee” and the term “wages” shall have the same meaning as when USED in chapter 21 (sec. 3101 and following, relating to Federal Insurance Contributions Act).

Note the absence in this code definition of any words of limitation such as “for purposes of this chapter” or “for purposes of this subchapter”. This definition means, therefore, that WHENEVER AND WHEREVER the terms “employee” and “wages” are used ANYWHERE throughout the IRC, their applications are limited to those people involved in activities within the four island possessions ONLY, the same as in chapter 21, the FICA tax chapter.

The Internal Revenue Code chapter which relates to withholding is chapter 24, titled “COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT SOURCE”. It Is extremely important to note that this chapter contains NO section imposing any tax. Rather, the entire chapter is written to establish and authorize provisions for withholding of tax merely as a method for the payment of taxes which may be imposed in OTHER sections of the IRC. Whenever a tax is imposed, there is always a section containing words such as “there is hereby imposed a tax …”. But in chapter 24, no such wording exists in any section; so clearly the entire chapter merely sets forth the PROCEDURES FOR COLLECTING TAXES IMPOSED ELSEWHERE in the IRC by the withholding methods described in the code sections of the chapter. Provisions of this withholding chapter are applicable only to “employees” as defined in code sections 1402(d) shown above and 3401(c) reproduced here:

Sec. 3401(c). Employee.

For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.

It is revealing that this definition INCLUDES the term “State” which is defined in code section 7701(a)(10) as the District of Columbia (ONLY) Remember that “includes,” as a word used in laws, is a word of CONFINEMENT, not of ENLARGEMENT according to the Supreme Court in Montello Salt v. Utah as discussed earlier. Hence this definition limits the application of the term “employee” to those working for the Federal government, for the District of Columbia, for U.S. possessions, and officers or a government owned corporation.

Section 3401(d) identifies the “employer” as one for whom the “employee” works. This means that the meaning of the term “employer” is limited to those entitles listed in section 3401(c) – the U.S. government, District of Columbia, etc. The term does NOT apply to any non-government employer or business. On the basis of these definitions alone, most of the nation’s population is not subject to the withholding provisions in this chapter.

In addition to those limitations on the application of the term “employee” shown above, section 1402(d) LIMITS the application of the term “employee” and the term “wages” to activities within the four island possessions ONLY. Therefore, the withholding provisions of chapter 24 can apply only to those working for the Federal government or the District of Columbia, etc. within these four island possessions – not within the fifty states of the union.

IR code section 3402(a)(1) contains tricky wording which could readily lead businesses and individuals Into erroneously believing that they are required to deduct and withhold taxes from the pay of those they hire. It is worded as follows:

Section 3402. Income tax collected at source.

(a) Requirement of withholding.

(1) In general. Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables or computational procedures prescribed by the Secretary. Any tables or procedures prescribed under this paragraph shall-…

Note that this section 3402(a)(1) says that the “employer” (Federal government, District of Columbia, etc.) shall deduct and withhold from “wages” a tax determined in accordance with the Secretary’s tables and computational procedures. We previously showed that the meaning of the term “wages” is limited by section 1402(d) to payments for activities occurring within the four island possessions ONLY, the same as provided in chapter 21 imposing the so-called Social Security (FICA) tax. These “tables and procedures” are authorized to be provided by the Secretary under section 3402(p)(3):

Sec. 3402(p)(3). Authority for other voluntary withholding.
The Secretary is authorized by regulations to provide for withholding-

(A) from remuneration for services performed by an employee for the employee’s employer which (without regard to this paragraph) does not constitute wages, and

(B) from any other type of payment with respect to which the Secretary finds that withholding would be appropriate under the provisions of this chapter, IF THE EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE, OR THE PERSON MAKING AND THE PERSON RECEIVING SUCH OTHER TYPE OF PAYMENT AGREE TO SUCH WITHHOLDING. Such agreement shall be in such form and manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe. For purposes of this chapter (and so much of subtitle F as relates to this chapter), remuneration or other payments with respect to which such agreement is made shall be treated AS IF THEY WERE WAGES PAID BY AN EMPLOYER TO AN EMPLOYEE to the extent that such remuneration is paid or other payments are made during the period for which the agreement is In effect.

Note that the Secretary is authorized to provide for withholding by issuing tables computational procedures and other instructional material on withholding that apply ONLY to those who have VOLUNTARILY AGREED to withholding. An agreement exists only when an individual who is hired voluntarily REQUESTS that money be deducted and withheld from his pay for payment of taxes and the one for whom he works completes the agreement by his VOLUNTARY act of collecting money as an unpaid tax collector for the government.

Despite the general mistaken belief that the deduction and withholding of money for taxes is required by law, a simple reading of this code section shows that such is not the case. Mandatory withholding would conflict with two key provisions in the U.S. Constitution: the Fifth Amendment right to due process states that no person shall be deprived of property (having his pay withheld) without due process of law (a ruling by a court) and the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against slavery or involuntary servitude, such as being forced to be an unpaid worker (slavery) or an unpaid Federal tax collector.

The use of the words “the person making” and “the person receiving such other type of payment” relates to non-federal employers and employees who voluntarily “agree to such withholding”. Federal regulation Number 31.3402(p)(1) states:

Sub-Section 31.3402(p)-1 Voluntary withholding agreements. (T.D. 7096, filed 3-17-71; amended by TD 7577, filed 12-19-78).

(a) In general. An employee and his employer MAY enter into an AGREEMENT under section 3402(p) to provide for the withholding OF INCOME TAX upon payments of amounts described in paragraph (b)(1) of Sub-Section 31.3401(a)-3, made after December 31, 1970. An agreement MAY be entered into under this section only with respect to amounts which are includible in the gross income of the employee under section 61, and must be applicable to all such amounts paid by the employer to the employee. The amount to be withheld PURSUANT TO AN AGREEMENT under section 3402(p) shall be determined under the rules contained in section 3402 and the regulations thereunder.

(b) Form and duration of agreement.

(1)
(i) Except as provided in subdivision (ii) of this subparagraph, AN EMPLOYEE WHO DESIRES TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT under section 3402(p) SHALL FURNISH to his employer Form W-4 (Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate) executed in accordance with the provisions of section 3402(f) and the regulations thereunder. The furnishing of such Form W-4 shall constitute a REQUEST FOR WITHHOLDING.

(ii) in the case of AN EMPLOYEE WHO DESIRES TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT under section 3402(p) with his employer, if the employee performs services (in addition to those to be the subject of the AGREEMENT the remuneration for which is subject to mandatory income tax withholding by such employer, or IF the employee wishes to specify that the AGREEMENT terminate on a specific date, the employee shall furnish the employer with a REQUEST for withholding which shall be signed by the employee, and shall contain -

(a) The name, address, and social security number of the employee making the REQUEST,

(b) The name and address of the employer,

(c) A statement that the employee DESIRES WITHHOLDING of Federal income tax, and, if applicable, of qualified State individual income tax (see paragraph

(d)(3)(i) of Sub-Section 301.6361-! of this chapter (Regulations on Procedure and Administration)), and

(d) If the employee desires that the AGREEMENT terminate on a specific date, the date of termination of the AGREEMENT. If accepted by the employer as provided In subdivision (iii) of this subparagraph, the REQUEST shall be attached to, and constitute part of, the employee’s Form W-4. An employee who furnishes his employer A REQUEST FOR WITHHOLDING under this subdivision shall also furnish such employer with Form W-4 if such employee does not already have a Form W-4 in effect with such employer.

(iii) No REQUEST for withholding under section 3402(p) shall be effective as an AGREEMENT between an employer and employee UNTIL THE EMPLOYER ACCENTS THE REQUEST BY COMMENCING TO WITHHOLD from the amounts with respect to which the request was made.

Note the wording in sub-sections (b)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this regulation: “…an employee who desires to enter into an agreement” and “REQUEST for withholding”, “DESIRES withholding” and “mutually agree upon”, all of which clearly and unambiguously show the VOLUNTARY nature of the entire withholding system. The significance of a Form W-4 “Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate” is clearly explained in this regulation which states:

“The furnishing of such Form W-4 shall constitute a REQUEST FOR WITHHOLDING,”‘

The printed heading on the Form W-4 confirms the voluntary nature of withholding; it states “Employee’s Withholding ALLOWANCE Certificate”. If withholding were mandatory, why would the form be called an “Allowance” Certificate? To “allow” means to “permit’ – if the law REQUIRED the withholding of tax from your pay, no PERMISSION or request form would be needed! To have a non-deceptive, clear-meaning heading, the words could be rearranged to “Employee’s Certificate ALLOWING Withholding”.

Regulation Section 31.3402(p)(2) states:

Sec. 3402(p)(2). An AGREEMENT under section 3402(p) shall be effective for such period as the employer and employee MUTUALLY AGREE upon. However, EITHER THE EMPLOYER OR THE EMPLOYEE MAY TERMINATE THE AGREEMENT PRIOR TO THE END OF SUCH PERIOD BY FURNISHING A SIGNED WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE OTHER. Unless the employer and employee AGREE to an earlier termination date, the notice shall be effective with respect to the first payment of an amount in respect of which the AGREEMENT is in effect which is made on or after the first “status determination date” (January 1, May 1, July 1, and October 1 of each year) that occurs at least 30 days after the date on which the notice Is furnished. If the employee executes a new Form W-4, the request upon which an AGREEMENT under section 3402(p) is based shall be attached to. and constitute a part of, such new Form W-4.

This regulation states that the AGREEMENT “shall be effective for such period as the employer and employee MUTUALLY AGREE UPON”, and that either the employer or the employee “MAY TERMINATE THE AGREEMENT prior to the end of such period by furnishing a signed written notice to the other.” Therefore it is obvious that the withholding must be REQUESTED by the employee, must be AGREED TO by the employer, and MAY BE TERMINATED BY EITHER BY GIVING WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE OTHER. The regulations merely state that the notice terminating withholding must be a signed, written notice – no particular form is ever required!

HOW NON-GOVERNMENT EMPLOYERS ARE DECEIVED AND INTIMIDATED

Because employers have possession and control over their employees’ earnings before the money is paid over to the employees, the key to the operation of the withholding scam is the deception and intimidation of the employers to withhold money from their employees’ pay even if their employees object to the withholding. Most employers, as well as their accountants and attorneys, have never studied the IR code carefully enough to understand its complexity. They are not aware of the geographical and other limitations in the Social Security (FICA) tax and upon the withholding provisions in chapter 24 of the IRC. They do not understand (as explained earlier in this article) that the FICA tax and the withholding provisions apply only within Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa; that under chapter 24 withholding is not mandatory for either the employer or the employee, and that the withholding provisions apply ONLY to cases where BOTH the employer and the employee voluntarily agree to the withhold
ing.

If a non-government employer considers NOT withholding when his employees demand their full pay and consults his accountant, tax lawyer or the IRS about the matter, his attention is usually called to IR code section 3403. This section is a psychological bombshell designed to intimidate the non-government employer into ignoring and defying any employee’s refusal to agree to withholding. IRC section 3403 states:

Sec. 3403. Liability for tax.
The employer shall be liable for the payment of the tax REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED AND WITHHELD UNDER THIS CHAPTER, and shall not be liable to any person for the amount of any such payment.

This section usually erroneously convinces non-government employers that they are personally liable to pay to the IRS the amount the withholding tables specify EVEN IF THEY DO NOT WITHHOLD THE MONEY FROM THEIR EMPLOYEES PAY. Non-government employers rarely understand that the term “employer” used in this section does not apply to them because the term “employer” as defined in the withholding provisions, means ONLY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RELATED AGENCIES AND INSTRUMENTALITIES (listed in section 3401(c) quoted earlier in this article).

Even then withholding applies ONLY within the four island possessions and then only when there is a VOLUNTARY MUTUAL AGREEMENT for withholding requested by the “employee” and agreed to by the “employer”. Because of these facts there is no way a non-government employer within the fifty states can be required to withhold tax under chapter 24. He cannot be “LIABLE” for payment of the tax unless he voluntarily acts as an unpaid tax collector for the government.

SUMMARY

The provisions of the Constitution cited heretofore under Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 prohibit any Federal direct tax on the people or their property within the states of the union. If it were constitutionally lawful for the Federal government to impose upon us a direct tax on our wages in the fifty states of the union without being in conflict with these constitutional limitations why would all the above cited sections clearly show the VOLUNTARY nature of all withholding?

Why, in fact, would the Federal government not have a clear and unambiguous single section in the IRC which would simply say that all of us who work for a living in this country are required to give Big Brother whatever portion of our earnings it decides to take? If such a law were constitutional, it would surely be included in the IRC. Why all the convoluted, complicated provisions showing geographical and other limitations and voluntary “requests” for withholding?

The answer is clear: No such simple taxing statute is possible because it is constitutionally prohibited to lay a Federal direct tax on the fruits of our labor inside the fifty states of the union. All the provisions of the IRC and the implementing regulations are strictly limited in order to be in conformity with these constitutional limitations.

As shown herein, the FICA tax imposed on workers under the provisions of section 3101 is a territorial income tax which applies ONLY in the four island possessions. The regulations implementing the withholding provisions in the IRC clearly show that all withholding is voluntary for all individuals, both government employees, (under 3402(p)(l)(A) and non-government (under 3402(p)(3)) workers. In order to institute withholding, a voluntary REQUEST must be made by the employee and ACCEPTANCE must be made by the employer.

After studying these code sections carefully, and understanding that they say what they mean and mean what they say, the complexity of the code becomes much easier to unravel. Terms such as “United States” as defined In section 3121(e)(2) show the restricted meaning of “United States” In chapter 21 to mean the four island possessions only. A student of the Code will find at FIVE other definitions of the term “United States” therein: Sections 638(1), 927(d)(3), 3306(j)(2), 4612(a)(4) and 7701(a)(9), also define the term “United States” for RESTRICTED USE in various parts of the IRC. Each definition is different in one or more ways from the others as to the geographical boundaries included in the meaning of the term. But as discussed previously, when a particular code section intends to include “the fifty states” in its definition, it says so – as in section 4612(a)(4). But the term “United States” as defined in section 3121(e)(2) limits this FICA tax to the four island possessions.

Because of the dispersed placement of code sections defining COMMON, EVERYDAY WORDS THAT ARE USED AS LEGAL TERMS in the IRC, most people who read the code without thorough study are unaware of the unique code definitions of these terms. These definitions limit the applications of the tax laws so that they do not conflict with the Fifth or Thirteenth Amendment or with the constitutional prohibition against unapportioned direct taxes in the fifty states.

The highly paid and well-trained attorneys who write the tax bills which are given to Congress for enactment are not dummies – they know very well the necessity of drafting these statutes in conformity with these Constitutional limitations forbidding direct taxation of the people within the fifty states. But, through careful framing of statutes and the use of confusing and misleading words, terms and definitions, they make the IRC almost impossible to understand without deep study. Such actions perpetuate the intentionally created false popular belief that the Federal government has the constitutional authority to tax us directly in these fifty United States. But once these code sections are carefully analyzed, one is reminded of the old adage:

“Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive!” Inform people of their rights. Show this to your friends! Copy this article and distribute it.

“How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!” — Samuel Adams (1722-1803), letter to John Pitts, January 21, 1776

DISCLAIMER: The data on this website is the collaborative experience, contributions, and research of various websites, legal books, tax documents, researchers, associates, attorneys, CPA’s, etc. and does not constitute legal advice. The primary purpose of this site is education. We do not advocate any specific course of action. What you do with this information and any course of action you decide to take, if any, is entirely your responsibility.

PR: wait… I: wait… L: wait… LD: wait… I: wait… wait… Rank: wait… Traffic: wait… Price: wait… C: wait…

State lawmakers work on bills to limit property seizures by police

Detroit – Efforts are under way to change Michigan’s civil forfeiture
laws that allow police to seize property without proving a crime
occurred.

State law allows police to take property, usually vehicles, for any
reason, even in the absence of criminal activity. A Detroit News
investigation in November found that vehicles sometimes are seized
even when police admit no crime took place. Two Michigan lawmakers
are working on separate bills that would restrict police power over
civil seizures. Meanwhile, a candidate for Wayne County sheriff, who
was in charge of a department that seized thousands of vehicles over
the past four years, says, if elected, he would overhaul the seizure
process in Wayne County.

“Under the current ordinance, there doesn’t have to be a crime proven
in order to seize someone’s vehicle,” said Walter Epps, a former Wayne
County sheriff’s lieutenant who ran the department’s Morality Squad
for more than four years. “But I feel if we’re going to take
someone’s car, the least we should do is to charge them with the crime
or issue them a ticket.” In one case, The News found that officers
from the Morality Squad seized a Southgate man’s vehicle after he
talked to a decoy prostitute — even though the undercover officer
admitted in her written report that the man hadn’t solicited her
during their brief conversation.

In another case, a Red Cross employee’s vehicle was seized by the
Morality Squad after she picked up a co-worker at a Detroit bank.
Because the vehicle owner’s co-worker had stood on a street corner
making eye contact with passing motorists while waiting for her ride,
police determined she was acting like a prostitute, even though she
never was charged for soliciting. Motorists must pay $900, plus
towing and storage fees, to get their vehicles back; otherwise, they
become property of the seizing agency and usually are sold at auction.

Two state lawmakers also are trying to pass laws to prevent police in
Michigan from seizing people’s property without officially accusing
them of a crime. State Rep. Gabe Leland, D-Detroit, introduced a
package of bills in December that would require police to seek charges
before seizing property.

“The intent of the legislation is simply to protect innocent people,”
Leland said. “The legislation states that when a person’s vehicle is
seized and they are either not charged with a crime or are determined
to be not guilty, then they will not be responsible for any related
towing or storage fees incurred during the investigation.” Leland’s
bills also would require authorities to return seized vehicles within
seven days at no cost if no charges are filed.

State Sen. Tupac Hunter, D-Detroit, said he plans to introduce
similar legislation later this month.

“Property seized during an investigation should be rightfully returned
to the property owner if the owner has been found innocent, or is not
found liable for a civil infraction,” Hunter said. “Something must be
done to reform the property forfeiture laws in order to protect
citizens’ rights. Michigan property owners should not have to fight
for seized property that should be rightfully returned to them when
innocence has been declared.”

From The Detroit News:
<http://www.detnews.com/article/20100214/METRO/2140309/1409/metro/State-lawmakers-work-on-bills-to-limit-property-seizures-by-police#ixzz0fc02r5Wu>

Until next issue, stay cool and remain low profile!

Privacy World