Time: Sat Sep 13 05:33:03 1997
	by usr09.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id FAA19089;
	Sat, 13 Sep 1997 05:28:27 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 05:28:18 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: FORUM: Income tax (fwd)

> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Truth in Media's GLOBAL WATCH Bulletin 97/9-4     12-Sep-97
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>                             Topic: READERS' FORUM
>                             -----------------------
>U.S. Income Tax Collection: Hoodwinking the Public for Over 50 Years
>       * * *
>Serb Civilians: Guinea Pigs for a New NATO Laser Weapon?
>       * * *
>PHOENIX - An American TiM reader send us a report from Japan in which
>the author said, among other things:
>>      A book by Philip Howard entitled "The Death of Common Sense: How
Law is
>> Suffocating America" (Random House, 1994) has been selling heavily in the
>> United States because it documents clearly this asphyxiation. Howard points
>> out that the United States has built "a legal colossus unprecedented in
>> the history of civilization, with legal dictates numbering in the millions
>> of words and growing larger every day.  Our regulatory system has become
>> an instruction manual.  It tells us and bureaucrats exactly what to do
>> and how to do it.  Detailed rule after detailed rule addresses every
>> eventuality ..."
>One comforting thought... As someone told me a long time ago (in the
>1970s) while I was still working for a large bureaucracy called IBM,
>"the last dying gasp of an organization is its issuance of yet another,
>larger, operations manual."   :-)
>Or another one about the splendiferous IBM tower at the corner of
>Madison Ave. and 57th St. in New York... An impressed visitor, marveling
>at the Big Blue's 42-story marble babel, asked a tour guide: "How many
>people work here?"  "About half," replied the guide.   :-)
>>      Howard explains that this is a fairly recent phenomenon:
>> "Only three decades ago, in the 1960s, government puttered along without
>> detailed rules to meet every eventuality" and "In the decades since World
>> War II, we have constructed a system of regulatory law that basically
>> outlaws common sense.  Modern law, in an effort to be 'self-executing' has
>> shut out our humanity. The motives were logical enough: Specific legal
>> mandates would keep government in close check and provide crisp guidelines
>> for private citizens. But it doesn't work. Human activity can't be
>> without judgement by humans."
>Tell it to the French, Mr. Howard!  Lest we forget, "bureaucrat" is a
>FRENCH word.  As bad as the U.S. is getting, it still has ways to go
>before matching the European bureaucracies, not to mention those in the
>former communist countries.  Unfortunately, we are closing the gap,
>especially during the two Clinton administrations.
>>      According to Donald Barlett and James Steele in their book entitled
>> "America: Who Really Pays the Taxes" (Touchstone, 1994), the first
>> U.S. tax law, in 1913, was 17 pages in length. The first complete revision,
>> in 1938, was 140 pages. The current tax law runs more than 3,000 pages.
>There is something worse than just the length or the complexity of the
>tax laws which requires armies or lawyers and accountants to untangle it
>(which they never do, for if they ever did, they'd be out of work). 
>Ironically, one of our Founding Fathers, Benjamin Franklin, helped
>foster the image of inevitability of taxation.  "In this world, nothing
>can be said to be certain except death and taxes," he wrote in a 1789
>letter to Jean Baptiste Le Roy.  Except that back then, there were no
>income taxes nor private tax collectors deployed by the government.
>Congress passed a "temporary" law during WW II, requiring employers to
>make tax deductions at the source - from their employees.  The FDR
>(Franklin Delano Roosevelt) government and the lawmakers pleaded
>national security interests.  A number of business entrepreneurs
>protested at the time that the law was unconstitutional; that the
>government had no right to appoint employers as its agents and tax
>collectors.  Furthermore, private companies are not compensated for the
>added expense of doing this government work.  But the dissenters' voices
>were drowned out by emotional arguments citing patriotism and war
>More than 50 years and several generations of Americans later, this
>arguably unconstitutional and clearly unfair legislation (both to
>employers and to employees), has given a new meaning to the term
>"temporary."  Most U.S. taxpayers today don't even know that there was
>once a better, fairer system of collecting taxes; that it is NOT a
>God-given right of the federal government to require others to do its
>dirty work.  Or that, for most of the first 137 years of the Republic,
>there was no income tax at all.  
>As a result, this is possibly the greatest example of hoodwinking by the
>("reds" in) FDR government since the 16th Amendment imposed the income
>tax on Americans in 1913.
>What followed was nothing short of plunder of the nation's working
>people.  With the politicians in their pocket, and having secured
>themselves the right to reach into the employees' pocketbooks
>practically at will, the industrial and Wall St. elites began to use the
>proceeds (taxes) for their own, not necessarily the American peoples'
>A number of foreign wars and "peacekeeping" missions around the world
>are one consequence of it (American troops are now serving in over 100
>countries, according to an August 1997 press release of the Libertarian
>Party).  "Corporate welfare" is another .  But the ever higher
>concentration of wealth (and thus power) in ever fewer hands is the
>ultimate consequence of this "taxation (virtually) without
>representation" money grab.
>During the 1930s (i.e., before the automatic deductions by employers
>were imposed), federal INDIVIDUAL income taxes were never more than 1.4
>percent of GNP.  CORPORATE taxes were never more than 1.6 percent.  In
>1990, those same taxes were 8.8 and 2.0 percent of GNP respectively (see
>the "Tax Decade," by C. Eugene Steuerle).  
>That's more than a six-fold increase for the individual wage earners'
>share, as compared to only 25% rise in the corporate portion of the tax
>burden.  And just think - all this happened two years BEFORE BILL
>CLINTON took power!
>> unable to hire a bevy of expensive lawyers.  Fortunately for O.J., he was
>> able to spend lavishly on the highest-priced lawyers in the United States,
>> and was acquitted.  This case made it transparent to anyone who didn't
>> already know that the United States has one standard of justice (1st
>> class) for the few who can afford to buy it and another (coach-class)
>> for everyone else.
>Well said!  Nor is the corruption of the American justice evident only
>in private or state litigation.  
>Look at how Janet Reno got away scot-free for the Waco murders.  Or how
>she has been evading the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to
>investigate illegal contributions to the Clinton/Gore 1996 campaign.
>Look at how Judge Marsh quashed the evidence which might have helped
>McVeigh at least avoid the death sentence, if not the guilty verdict. 
>Look at the inequitable treatment of American vs. Russian diplomats
>(refer to my recent correspondence with the American press attaché in
>Moscow [Hoagland]).  Look at how a Los Angeles judge, after having heard
>the plea by the State Dept. lawyers, ruled that the Sultan of Brunei
>could not be sued by the former Miss USA, Shannon Marketic, for holding
>her as a sex slave on his oil-rich tropical island.  Look at how Saudi
>Arabia and China (and to a lesser extent Israel), for example, continue
>their persecution of Christians, while the U.S. government not only
>looks the other way, but ostracizes our diplomat who spoke up about it
>(e.g., Tim Hunter). 
>One could write a book (literally) about the corruption of the American
>justice, but I'll stop here.  It is quite clear that despite (or maybe
>because of) our 750,000+ economic parasites who only help distribute,
>not create, the nation's wealth (the lawyers, of course), our justice
>system is rotten to the core.  The fact that the U.S. employs three
>quarters of the world's attorneys, according to a Financial Times 1994
>report, is in itself a condemnation of our judicial system's
>self-serving litigiousness.
>Ed.  Our original reply has been slightly expanded in this edition. 
>Bob Dj.
>PHOENIX - The message we received on Sept. 10 (enclosed below) from a
>TiM reader was prompted by our recent Balkan affairs stories.  It looks
>like the Serb civilians in Bosnia may be about to become the guinea pigs
>for a field test of a newfangled laser technology which attaches to an
>M16, a standard NATO assault rifle:
>> Date:  Wed, 10 Sep 1997 20:38:59 -0700
>> There is a local company, SEA (don't know what it stands for), which has
>> been working on a device which attaches to the M16 rifle, much the same
>> as a grenade launcher, under the barrel.  This device is about the same
>> size as a small OJ concentrate can and attaches basically where the
>> bayonet lug is.  Replaces the M79 GL.
>> This device has two switches on it.
>> The first switch is On/Off and is pretty straight forward-this is how
>> you turn it on and off.
>> The second switch has three positions:  AIM, TEMP, BLIND. (may be
>> labeled differently, but the function is correct).
>> The device is a laser.  In the first position of the selector switch,
>> you get a nice little red dot used for aiming the M16.  The second
>> position turns the power up on the laser and if the laser hits your
>> eyes, you get temporarily blinded, it lasts anywhere from 15 minutes to
>> a day depending upon how long the target is exposed.  The third position
>> will blind the target permanently.  (Ever wondered why the FCC bans
>> aiming of a laser at a vehicle.)
>> What is most interesting, this device just started deploying
>> recently(within the last year or so).  And, insiders at SEA indicate,
>> one of the chief engineers of the product has been issued a plane ticket
>> to fly to Bosnia for yet unannounced reasons.
>> Speculation is that maybe there is a problem or maybe they want some
>> first hand instruction, but the device is deployed.
>> Now here is MY speculation, Bosnia is mainly a "civil disobiedence" at
>> this time.  Maybe the brass is going to find out how to use it on some
>> other population and then..... [deploy it on Americans at home?]
>> Of course you guys in Phoenix wouldn't
>> know anything about (the) martial law, yet, huh?
>Another military source has verified the validity of the above
>information.  Here is what a relatively recently U.S. Army retiree wrote
>to us on Sept. 11:
>> Date:            Thu, 11 Sep 1997 23:02:24 -0700
>> The weapon is functionally as stated by your TiM reader. It was being
>> highly touted at the time I was leaving the military as a "humane" 
>> method of "riot control."
>> The only defensive protection is sight protection. Fortunately, it is 
>> available commercially. Anyone who services the high tech laser 
>> industry would be a supplier.
>> In an emergency, "chrome" sunglasses, like the old California Highway
>> Patrol type, will do the job at the lower settings. Laser is simply 
>> amplified light, and any reflective surface will disperse it. The more
>> reflective the better, the thicker the coating the better.
>> Another method is to use fogging; preferably something containing 
>> easily suspended glassine particles. Something available locally might
>> be white fibreglass. Water fogging will also work very well. 
>> ANYTHING to refract, diffuse, absorb, or reflect light.
>> Another defensive tactic to know is that laser light can be easily seen,
>> if only momentarily. If detected through fog or mist, those at a slight
>> angle to the impact of the ray can bring fire upon the general vicinity
>> and to the rear of the source.
>What follows is another message we've received from the same U.S.
>military expert.  He comments here about the possible motives for and
>methods of deployment:
>> You know as well as I that the Iraqis were set up by that dame at the
>> State Dept. to go ahead and try to get their ancient land - Kuwait -
>> back. It was a ruse which emboldened Saddam Hussein.
>>      You and I know that the American public, as a whole, went into
>> "Patriotic Fits." People were calling Arabs "rag-heads," etc., and
>> jokes became profuse. The media went along, like so many puppets.
>>      You must also know by now that the issue was not the safety of Jews,
>> nor the security of a plentiful and cheap oil supply to the West. Saudi
>> Arabia and Egyptian forces could have dealt with Saddam with their very
>> capable pilots, using Western equipment and munitions.
>>      You may now realize that the event was purely a demonstration; a
>> "show of force" of the immense technical and military power of the NWO...
>> and no one "really minded" killing a bunch of screaming "rag-heads."
>>      But how would people react to killing White people - - again?  Yet
>> to be tested.  
>[actually, it has been "tested" already when NATO bombed the Bosnian
>Serbs incessantly for over three weeks in Aug-Sep/95, killing scores
>of "white people," both soldiers and civilians, in the process.  Bob
>>      As I mentioned before, the very first step in propaganda -
>> to make an enemy - whether real or imagined, is to de-humanize. This was
>> accomplished when a slip of the tongue was made, and it was
>> re-interpreted, "Ethnic Cleansing."  (It was) followed by "Genocide."
>>      Say Serbia. Say propaganda. Say Enemy. Say "Testing."
>[Meanwhile, back to the NATO M16 laser weapon...]
>> The AIM switch is the lowest calibration, used for "Zero-ing" the device
>> to the sight alignment of the individual weapon.
>> At a distance of 35m, the soldier aligns his weapon sights front sight
>> post, seen through the rear sight aperature with the center mass or
>> specific point of the target calibration unit.  Since the individual
>> weapon is already "zeroed," the newly installed laser attachment needs to
>> be in alignment as well. When the soldier finds his target using his
>> conventional sights, his option is to fire the weapon or the laser, via a
>> separate triggering device close to the M16A1/A2 trigger.
>>    Just a small clarification; the M203A1 is the Grenade Launcher which
>> attaches to the M16A1 / M16A2.  The M79 is a hand-held grenade launcher,
>> which is still in the inventory, but is NOT attached or attachable to the
>> M16A1 / M16A2.
>> As it appears the weapon is deployed, there will be information available
>> under the FOI Act. DOD and Dept. of the Army will have FM's (Field
>> Manuals) and TM's (Technical Manuals) already published.  The only thing
>> that will be restricted are tactical and deployment information manuals.
>Bob Djurdjevic 
>Phoenix, Arizona 
>e-mail: bobdj@djurdjevic.com 
>LINKS:  http://www.beograd.com/truth/
>        (Truth in Media home page) 
>        http://www.forbes.com/tool/html/97/aug/returns0805/
>        (Djurdjevic's August 1997 FORBES column, "The Japanese are 
>        coming (maybe)"
>        http://www.forbes.com/tool/html/97/july/returns0708/einstein.htm 
>        (Djurdjevic's July 1997 FORBES column, "Move Over Einstein, 
>        Signor Da Vinci Is Back") 
>        http://www.djurdjevic.com 
>        (Annex Research home page)

Paul Andrew Mitchell                 : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA;  M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine

tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com   : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this

As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail