Dear IRS
I apologize for the untimeliness of my reply concerning my compliance to your "alleged" assessments. I underwent shoudler surgery at the VA in late January, suffered through a kidney stone and now find myself as primary caregiver for my elderly Aunt who is home now from the nursing home she'd been in after suffering a fall and becoming injured, and I am still recuperating from my surgery and unable to work.
Between the pain and the meds and the fact that I couldn't use my favorite arm and hand, it has taken me until now to transform what I was able to discern from having "hit the books" into the written word as I told the IRS agent I'd called (at my own expense and from my own home) in good faith in an effort to discuss the differences we seem to have in opinion. And in regard to that conversation I would like you to cite the "Law" that specifically states that I am forbidden to record a conversation I initiated on my own phone when it comes to speaking with one of your agents. It seems to me that it lies within the realm of probability that the agent is going to act not as a mediary between yourselves and myself, but has a vested interest in leaning everything in your direction so as to get maximum "voluntary compliance" as is referenced so often in your manuals, after all, it is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on him not understaning it, and given the scope and level of IRS abuses I have assimilated it seems to me that there is an atmosphere at or within your organization that allows for persons in your employ to be serial contrarians, therefore he could, conceiveably, either have lied to me or in some other way attempted to lead me to believe something that was not true and therefore violate my Constitutional civil rights.
Are you telling me then that I do not have the right to protect myself from what might be an overzealous agent whose salaries and promotion depends upon how well they are able to enforce voluntary compliance?
After having "hit the books" I am still unswayed in my contention that "Income Tax" as you say they apply to me, do not. I believe in "good faith" that the "Income Tax" as you are attempting to apply it to me is not Constitutionally valid as it has to be written in as non-compulsory in order to retain said Constitutional validity.
So I have carefully studied what you seem to want to contend are "frivolous" arguements, and in some cases I could actually see your point, in others, however, and in good conscience, I could not, but putting that conflict completely aside I have sought out numerous sources to attempt to confirm or deny my original summations that have little, if anything, to do with the "frivolities" you mentioned earlier as I have no desire to waste mine, yours, a judge, or a juries' time.
To that end there are questions I have and statements I feel the need to make regarding my newer findings that I would like you to answer for me so that I might have a clearer understanding of what former President of the United States, Jimmy Carter, once called a disgrace to the human race and what your own former Commissioner (Shirley Peterson) stated was "Incomprehensible, even to professionals in the field".
Or in more specific terms, your organization, the I.R.S.
Hardly a wonder since the Tax Laws as they were written in 1913 contained a mere 11,400 words. As of 1999 it (the I.R.S. Manual) is more than 7,000,000 words.
By comparison, the King James Bible contains only 773,000 words.
So can you tell me, for a certainty, that any single I.R.S. Agent fully comprehends the code as it is so vaguely and convolutedly written?
Given that understanding I would like, then, to state why I feel I am (still) NOT a "taxpayer" as set forth in the terms described in 26 U.S.C., and I would like to ask you a series of questions that I feel certain you will not find "frivolous".
Should you answer them satisfactorily I will be convinced of my "alleged" obligations and will comply without reservation as I am only trying to get to the truth of a matter that finds our entities in conflict.
Therefore, sir, I trust that you will appreciably reply to my evidences and my doubts in a manner that will allow for what I am sure we both want solved.
Where to begin.
I shall try to be as concise and clear as I can, and I shall try to present them in an order that will make the most sense, but I only ever got a G.E.D. and I climb trees for a living, I'm not as well versed in these matters as a "professional" in the field.
I suppose before I begin I would like to once again request anything that may be on file in the Secretaries Office that records any alleged tax liability under Section 6203 as what I received from Kenneth Wilder, Disclosure Specialist, in a letter from the Department Of The Treasury, dated August 1st, 2005, concerning request for same he states that there are no Summary Records of Assessments on file that Identify either myself of any other taxpayer by name, but then I suppose that's why we have "Social Securitiy Numbers", so if you would, please have them look under my "Taxpayer Identification Number" so that we might clear this matter up.
Other than that he says they charge $17.00 an hour to search through what must be a mountain of information which, for all intents and purposes, should be at the touch of a button as long as he types my "ID" number in correctly, and for which, by law, they are incumbent upon
giving me at my request within a 30 day time frame given them by your own Law.
What's more, in a letter signed by a different Disclosure Agent (a [Mr./Ms./Mrs.?] "C. Hardee", in a letter dated June 2, 2006, on page 8 under "Summary Record of Assessments", racs report 006, Certificate Number 13320051006001, "Claims" that I "allegedly" owe $26,638,490,428.99 in unpaid "Income" taxes, $141,807,686.06 in "Penalties", and $60,101, 827.60 in "Interest" for a total of $26,840,399,942.65 (assessment date 01/01/2005).
So am I to honestly believe I am in debt to the United States Government to the amount of nearly three Billion dollars?
I like a punchline as well as the next guy, but this one tops them all.
Is this debt true or is it a real son-of-a-glitch? And if "it's" a glitch, how then can I trust any other amounts you portend that I "Owe", especially given what I consider to be non-frivolous arguements I still intend to make - and reference?
On the following page (9), however, there is a "Copied" signature of what appears to be "Debra C. Hennessey", "Signature" (For Service Center Directors of Internal Revenue Service) that, after crunching all these ungodly numbers, goes on to state that the "Total" as is featured to the right of "Principal Taxpayers And Amounts Related To Jeopardy Assessments" is $0.00.
To say the least I find this confusing and would like to inquire to Ms./Mrs. Hennessey, as is my 5th Amendment right concerning full Disclosure Laws, as to by what means and informations at her disposal did she come up with the figures she did, and then why they, on the next page, added up to $0.00.
Before I continue I would like to formally request a copy of my Individual Master File and full disclosure on the exact, step by step process that you have utilized in rendering your "assessments" against me so that said, required by Law, "Disclosure" is available to me as is directive in regards to the Disclosure Office who are "...responsible for providing any necessary information to counsel and securing testimony authorizations and providing guidance to subpoenaed empolyees" ("guidance" = "coaching"?).
As required in the condition precedent set by Shapiro Vs. Secretary Of State and as per your own procedural guidelines, by LAW, you are REQUIRED to send me form 17 or 17A if I "owe" a "Tax" I have not paid. This, as you know, is the REQUIRED, OFFICIAL, and DULY DELEGATED "Form" specifically stating that it is a "Bill" for what is "Due and Owing" which I have never, to date, received.
I have received forms 5564, CP504, 806-A, 4549, 1040A (which, considering you have no ORIGINAL 1040A filed by myself you, by law, couldn't possibly be in possession of [will reference at a later time]), and 1040 (see last parentheticals), but I have yet to receive the requiste forms that specifically states that it is a "Bill" for what is "Due and Owing" as is REQUIRED by LAW. Just as I have yet to receive the necessary "Disclosure" that would allow me the opportunity to prove either of our points (reference 26 CFR 601.103 (a) if this simplifies matters for you).
Have been advised to formally request AINS/AMDIS printout. As of yet I have only a cursory understanding of the need for this, but am still in the process of assimilating and extrapolating all of the newer informations I have uncovered that seem to not be "frivolous" as you have deemed by law, as I do not intend to waste any more of your time as well as my own, much less a judge and/or a juries. Would also like any full disclosure due to me under the Freedom Of Information Act regarding wherein my "Tax Liability" and "Filing Requirement" might be fully outlined.
And, speaking of which, I am told I can request a local jury trial if necessary since what you contend I owe falls under a category that allows for same to be conducted here if it boils down to that (unless you think I really DO owe nearly 3 Billion dollars...) and that would be why I filed for no "Appeal", as I still consider your attempts to attempt to collect monies from me unlawful, as I shall continue to attempt to point out to our mutual satisfaction, but, please, feel free to truthfully and effectively answer all of my questions in the event you can make sense to me of the "alleged" liability and filing requirement you say I have, for if you can do so effectively, in good faith, then I, in good faith, shall file and pay as you suggest I do, and inasmuch as filing said "Appeal" (such as you offered to me at an earlier date), to me, would be akin to lending creedence to what I still consider to be an illegal act which I feel is completely unlawful at its heart, so I therefore opted out of your "option" as I felt that to conform to it would deny me my Constitutional Right to continue to seek a solution in the manner that should, by my reckoning and understanding of the LAW, be available to me through you, especially considering the evidences I intend to relate to you and what I consider to be your obvious ommissions regarding what I consider to be a misuse of Code Sections that cannot possibly apply to me.
Can you show me, specifically, so we can both have a mutual understanding, which provision within the I.R.S. Code that creates my "Tax Liability" and "Filing Requirement"? I am aware that you lost your case against Kuglin on those grounds, and I have numerous certified return mail receipts to show that I have answered every letter ever sent to me by your organization essentially seeking the same answers that Kuglin sought, so it is incumbent upon you to provide me with said provision so as to prevent what her assessment agent, apparently, hadn't been prepared for and I would prefer that, if such a provision exists, that you make it known to me for Full "Disclosure" purposes so I can make a carefully considered decision regarding your contentions that I "Owe" the I.R.S. and then file and pay if I deem your informations to be lawful and correct and mine have been in error.
In an Internal Revenue Investigation, Hearings before a Sub-Committee of the Commission of Ways and Means, House of Representatives, 83rd Congress, 1st session, on the administration of the Internal Revenus Laws, Part "A", states in relevant part that "Your Income Tax is a 100% Voluntary Tax and your Liquor Tax is 100% enforced, now the situation is as different as day and night", tesimony given by Dwight E. Avis, then HEAD of the Alcohol and Tobacco Division.
I find this to be in complete contradiction to your allegations that I have both a "Filing Requirement" and a "Tax Liability" under the "Title" you say I am "Required" under, and since he would be higher up in the I.R.S. food chain I would think he'd quite likely have a greater understanding of the true nature of things, which makes me wonder about and, essentially doubt, your "assessments" since they appear to me to have been rendered due to a willfull (or otherwise) and gross misapplication of the Law.
But wait, there's more.
Jerome Kurtz, in his Internal Revenue Annual Report, circa 1980, states that the I.R.S.'s PRIMARY
task is to collect taxes under "Voluntary Compliance System". Therefore if, as you say, my compliance is "Compulsory", I would appreciate knowing which provision/Code Section makes it so.
True or False: "Income" is specifically defined within the Internal Revenue Code? If True, please provide me with where said specific definition lies as I cannot seem to find it anywhere within the confines of the Code. Simple question, one you should be able to answer rather easily.
Thus far I have been consistently denied "Due Process", as is my 5th Constitutional Right regarding the hows, whys, and wherefores of how your "assessments" against me have come into being. I have NOT been served with the "REQUIRED" forms demanding payment for what is "Due and Owing", I therefore formally request that all said informations be furnished to me for further study so that I can make a carefully informed determination of what you "allege" I "owe", or that you abandon your attempts to collect from me taxes I cannot/have not been allowed to fully examine/comprehend and which are in serious doubt to me given what I still intend to present to you.
Spreckles Sugar Refining Company v. McClain, 192 US 397 (pg. 416) ruled, in relevant part, that a citizen is EXEMPT from taxation unless same is impose by CLEAR and UNEQUIVOCAL LANGUAGE" (see "Shirley Peterson" as quoted above and then see if you can tell me in that clear and unequivocal language wherein lies my "Tax Liability" and "Filing Requirement", do so and I will happily comply to your requests).
One thing you regarded as "Frivolous" that I have an issue with is best described in a Supreme Court Decision in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 US 1 wherein their decision effectively ruled that the 16th amendment "...did not amend the Constitution, but established the Income Tax as an indirect excise tax", meaning that said "taxation on Income was, in its nature, an Excise Tax and Entitled to be enforced as such and that the whole purpose of the amendment was to "relieve" all Incomes Taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the Income was derived", in other words, completely contrary to the way it is currently "Imposed" by your organization today. Therefore I would like the particulars of the laws that have made this High Courts' decision null and void as well as whichever ones created the "Income Tax" as it is supposed to be lawful today as it will take both for me to ascertain the liability you say I "have", and which are my Right to have under the 5th Amendment Due Process Laws.
Merchants Loan and Trust Company vs. Smietanka, 255 US 509, (1921, pgs. 518, 519), yet another Supreme Court Decision states in relevant part that "Income" has the same meaning as the Corporation Excise Tax of 1909", which is why, to my understanding, my "Taxes", per se, fall under Sub-Title "C", "Employment Taxes and Collections of Taxes at their Source", and not Sub-Title "A" as you would seem to have me want to believe.
If this is not so please explain the particulars to me so that I might garner a greater understanding of the "incomprehensible" nature of the Tax and the assessments you seem to have rendered against me utilizing a "Mandatory" Sub-Title rather than the "Voluntary" nature to which I believe MY alleged "Taxes" apply.
Your "assesments" detail that Section 6020 (b) were utilized to determine my "Tax Deficiency", yet the preceding aspect of said Section was, for some reason, ommitted. It (Section 6020 (a)) states, in relevant part that "Preparation of a return by the Secretary if any person shall fail to make a return required by this Title as by regulations prescribed thereunder but shall consent (emphasis mine) to disclose all information necessary for the preparation thereof, then, and in that case, the Secretary may (not "must" [emphasis mine]) prepare such return being signed by such person (emphasis, again, mine) may be received by the Secretary as the return of such person.". Therefore any "Return" prepared by the I.R.S. can contain no information from which a "Tax" can be determined (see U.S v. Verkuilen and Schiff v. Commissioner U.S.T.C., 1984-223) unless the "Taxpayer" has filed an "Original" return, which I have not done (as I still continue to hold that I have neither a "Tax Liability nor a "Filing Requirement"), neither have I given my "Consent" in any way, shape, or form (no pun intended...), therefore your organization cannot possibly have the required information necessary, b Law, to render any kind of assessment against me under the letter of said Law.
Therefore, since we both know I have filed no return because I, in good faith, believe that I am not subject to the "Tax" as you suppose it is applied to me, 6020 (b) cannot be enforced since there was no "Original" return filed by myself from which a determination could have been made, and that, in no small way, is part of the underlying reason as to why I feel I am NOT subject to your "Jurisdiction", your "Tax" or your "Revenue Laws" as they apply to Sub-Title "A" as you attempt to apply them to me and which, to my understanding, applies ONLY to Foreign corporations, non-resident aliens, and whomever draws a federal paycheck.
None of what was mentioned above can possibly apply to me and that is why I must contest your, apparently, unlawful allegations that I "Owe" anything to the I.R.S., and especially not what amounts to nearly 3 Billion dollars.
Bill Gates makes more in a day than I will in my lifetime, but I doubt you'd even try to hand him such a "Bill" (but then since it's not the "Requisite" form "Required" by Law then it's not really a "Bill" at all, and 6020 (b) can't possibly apply given the nature of its preceding clause so I can only surmise that it has been misapplied in your "alleged" case against me).
Section 6011 only applies when persons are "Required" to make "Returns/Statements pursuant to certain regulations prescribed by the Secretary", and yet that "Section" fails in specificity by not directly identifying ANY of those specific "Regulations".
If this is not so please advise me as to where I can find such references so that I may be better able to determine the true nature of the assessments you have rendered against me (by, apparently, misusing Code Section 6020 (b)).
I can find nowhere in Sections 6001 or 6011 where it specifically states that the "Taxes" imposed in Section 1 shall (which, by LAW, can be construed as "May", [Reference Fort Howard Paper Company v. Fox River Heights Sanitary district, 26 NW 2nd 661, also see Cairo and Fulton R.R. Company v. Hect, 95 US 170]...) be paid on the basis of a "Return", such as is specified in Code Sections dealing with Alcohol/Tobacco and Firearms (mandatory "Taxes"). Note that said Section does not contain any specific/particular reference to "Income". Will you please explain this discrepancy? I am sure that if you were to effectively do so you could better establish your position that I am in violation of the law, and, if I am, it is certainly something I would like to know so that I might conform to the letter of same and make everyone happy that this event is behind us.
"Dummy" returns, as arbitrarily created by agents of your organization and not unlike the ones in which you are likely trying to use against me at this time, according to "Phillips v. C.I.R., 1986, TC 433", the Court specifically ruled that such "Dummy" returns do NOT (emphasis mine...) have the status of a return".
Lynn Poll, one time Chief Correspondence Secretary to the I.R.S. stated in a letter to a taxpayer who requested a record of their assessment that "A record of assessment for the years cannot be determined until such a time as you file your Income Tax Returns and any subsequent examinations of the tax years are made".
So, according to this person, I MUST have had to have filed a return for you to have created a lawful assessment against me. Since I filed no return, in good faith that I am under no specific obligation to do so, and since no one in your organization seems to want to provide me with the provision(s) that fully create that lawful obligation in clear and concise terms I am led to believe that no such tax liability or filing requirement exists on my part and therefore I choose to continue to not volunteer my alleged "Taxes" until such a time as it has been made crystal clear to me wherein that "tax liability" and "filing requirement" lies. Therefore, and to that end, I ask, again, if your records show wether a "Lawful" assessment has been made against me pursuant to Code Section 6201, and are you, specifically, authorized by LAW, to determine a "Tax Deficiency" before you have proven a "Tax Liability" as provided for within the confines of that Section?
Section 6203 provides and requires that the Secretary, upon request from the "Taxpayer", shall (not to be construed as "May" in this concern) furnish said taxpayer with a copy of any records of assessment within 30 days of said request. As you'll see I have provided copies of numerous certified mail receipts wherein I have made numerous 6203 requests over the years after receiving what I can only consider to be "bogus" "Notice and Demands" that were never the "Required" forms, and, in all but one situation, my requests were completely and totally ignored.
But the one response I DID get states I "Owe" nearly 3 Billion dollars in unpaid taxes, penalties, and interest, but hen somehow totals $0.00 on the following page. Very confusing.
And it would be funny if it weren't so truly tragic.
I think I can say with a certainty that I do not owe the Federal Government 3 Billion dollars, so something isn't just rotten in Denmark and the smell seems to be coming from your office.
Can you tell me what Section of the I.R. Code authorizes you to determine a tax deficiency before you even determine a tax, record the liability, and notify "Taxpayer" as provided for and required by Sections 6201, 6202, and 6203?
Where in Section 6020 does it state that there are "Penalties" if a "Taxpayer" does not consent (volunteer) to disclose informations?
This would prove most helpful in allowing me to determine the validity of what seems to me to be an unlawfully and illegally perpetrated claim against me. Has 6020 (a) been revoked or amended? These are extremely pertinent (non-frivolous) questions to the issues at hand, therefore I wholeheartedly request that you provide answers to these questions in an effort to allow me to more fully understand and appreciate the full/complete nature of the claims you seem to have illegally rendered against me through what I can't help but consider to be a gross misapplication of the existing Laws.
Has the Secretary of the Treasury (whose agent says I "Owe" nearly 3 Billion dollars...) been given authority by Congress other than to ENCOURAGE voluntary compliance with I.R.S. Laws and Regulations? Please be specific in this answer.
If this is so can you be wholly specific as to where said authority lies so that I might investigate same for Disclosure purposes as I try to, pro se, create my own defense against your allegations regarding "Taxes" I "allegedly" "owe"?
Can you provide me with any Section of the law that says there are interest/fraud penalties if a "Taxpayer" does not consent (volunteer) to give the I.R.S. information from which a tax can be computed? And would not providing said information conflict with my 5th amendment rights by doing so? And does not the I.R.S. Handbook for Special Agents specifically state in Section 342.12 that "An individual may refuse to exhibit his books and records for examination on the grounds that compelling him to do so violates his rights against possible self-incrimination under the 5th Amendment" (and constitutes an illegal search and seizure under the 4th Amendment)?
Could you take the time, as I have, in an effort to bring clarification to you, to enlighten me as to where the lines are drawn in this immense sand of "Incomprehensible" Law that we seem to be quagmired in?
Are you aware that Title 18 USC 241 and Section 6214 (a) (1) and (2) makes it a crime for you to knowingly demand of me a sum (such as nearly 3 Billion dollars...) which is greater than is authorized by law?
To that end I pray that you examine and answer all of my questions very carefully, as I have no qualms against Prosecution of the Law and the suing of yourself and your agency for what essentially amounts to a "Reckless Collection" action that former President Bill Clinton, noting out-of-control I.R.S. abuses, signed into law a specification allowing the raising of the amount a "Taxpayer" can sue the Federal Government for from $100,000.00 to $1,000,000.00 in an effort to reign in your well publicized abuses (of the time).
To date I cannot begin to quantify the hours I have spent in researching and assimilating and extrapolating the information at my disposal, which I have only begun to present, and which have given me migraines as I try, pro se, to construct, with my limited resources, a defense to your claims which has been made more difficult since no one in your office seems willing to share with me the formal requests I have made in an effort to prepare said, pro se, defense.
Numerous courts have ruled that attempts such as you are attempting to perpetrate upon me now constitutes a violation my Constitutional Right to Due Process and is compounded by the fact that you are willfully denying me Full Disclosure in regard to exactly wherein my alleged "Tax Liability" and "Filing Requirement" are concerned and which is mine by rights of Law for the asking - and which is in serious question to me now that I have had to point out to you that you have used Section 6020 (b) against me illegally in direct opposition to the provisions and requirements of that Section as is found in 6020 (a).
True or False? = "Notice and Demand" for tax shall (which we now know can be construed as "May" by the letter of the law) be given to taxpayer via 6303 (a) of the 1954 Internal Revenue Code as was made applicable to the 1939 Internal Revenue Code by Section 7581 (a)(6)(B) of the 1954 Internal Revenue Code?
As a rule, for you to convict me of any kind of "willful evasion" under the burder of proof, as per Rule 301, you will have to prove that I have purposefully acted in "bad faith" to elude or defeat this allegedy "Mandatory" (is this "Tax" "Mandatory", as you suggest, and if so, what makes it so for me, considering what I have presented to you so far?) "Tax".
I have, in good faith, responded to every letter I have ever received from your organization, but my Lawful requests have been (willfully?) "ommitted" or downright ignored after writing letters such as this one I am writing, in good faith, to you now in an effort to seek the answers I must have to make a more informed decision as to the particulars of the arguements you are attempting to utilize in what seems to me to be a flagrant misuse of authority due to the (intentional/unintentional?) misuse of Code Sections that cannot possibly apply to me. I, therefore, omit paying and filing regarding this "allegedly" "Mandatory Tax" because my understanding in regards to it leads me to believe that "I" fall under Sub-Title "C", not "A", as you seem to want to attest. Furthermore due to it's convoluted, "difficult to understand/comprehend" status and because of its often misleading Publications, Laws, and Regulations, then, for all intents and purposes, it should be "Void for Vaugeness", which is also a matter of "Law" as I am certain you are aware.
True or False? = There are no Regulations under 26 USC Section 7621 which "specifically" authorizes the President of the United States to "establish" revenue districts, so, by law there are no "districts" for the States of the Union, but only apply, by law to it's outlying Territories, such as Guam and Puerto Rico?
It is now my understanding that the I.R.S. relies upon cases like Collins, Becraft, Barcroft and Ward in an attempt to refute this arguement, but what interests me is that in each case the Agency relies solely on a Courts' unsupported statement instead of a proper legal reference, which is, of course, what the illegitimate jurisdiction arguement is based upon.
A U.S. Attorney in a 1993 civil case in Idaho wherein the Attorney "Denies that the Internal Revenue is an Agency of the United States Government", and add to this that the Internal Revenue Service was initially created as a Puerto Rican Agency, which supports the contention that there is a significant distinction in Law between the "Federal" United States, and the Constitutional United States of America.
This seems to support the facts that Sub-Title "A" which, by law, applies to non-resident aliens, foreign corporations and those who specifically draw a Federal paycheck, would be in Force within these parameters and do not extend toward "Americans" as you have attempted to apply towards myself and God knows how many other unsuspecting, uninformed others.
To that end, as a freedom loving American, I cannot, in good conscience, deny the facts as I feel I have come to understand them when a portion of my meager livelyhood seems to be being demanded from me by means of "authoritative" chicanery.
Pursuant to Treasury Delegation Order No. 92, the I.R.S. is trained under the direction of the Division of Human Resources United Nations (U.N.) and the Commissioner (International) by the Office of Personnel Management.
In the 1979 edition of 22 USCA 278, "The United Nations", you will find Executive Order 10422, which states, in relevant part, that the Office of Personnel Management is under the direction of the Secretary of the United Nations and, pursuant to Delegation Order 91, the "I.R.S." entered into a "Service Agreement" with the US Treasury Department (see public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pg. 5967 Re-Organization (BANKRUPTCY) plan No. 26) and the "Agency for International Development".
This "Agency" is an International Parlimentary Operation and, according to the Department of the Army Field Manual (1969) 41-10, pgs. 1-4, Sections 1-7 (b) and 1-6, Sections 1-10 (7) (c) (1), and 22 USCA 284 and includes such activities as assumption of full or partial executive, legislative, and judicial authority over a country or area, as well as being an agency/member of a 169 Nation Pact called the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) which can be determined by 22 USCA 263a.
Rather than continue verbatim as to what I could continue to quote chapter and verse on, I think it safe to summarize by saying that under Article 30 of the Interpol Constitution that I.R.S. Agents, essentially, are Agents of a "Foreign Principle" within the meaning and intent of the "Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938" and since you, by law, must expatriate yourselves from the United States in order to be effectualized as an employee of the I.R.S., you aren't even an American, and you don't "lawfully" collect "Taxes" from "true" Americans as you only seem to have the power to do so as they apply to territories, commonwealths, and outlying areas, and not the "States of the Union" as they apply to "America". So the "Federal Reserve Bank" and the "I.R.S. Collection Agency" are both "Privately Owned" and operated under "Private" statutes. Therefore the "I.R.S." operates under public policy not Constitutional Law, and more in the interest of our Nations Foreign Creditors and NOT the "American People".
True or False = The Constitution only permits Congress to lay and collect taxes, it does not authorize Congress to delegate the "Tax Collection Power" to a "Private Corporation" (such as yours) for a Private Bank (the Federal Reserve) who then deposits it into the Treasury of the "International Monetary Fund"? It seems to me then that "American" "Income Taxes" don't even stay in this country and aren't utilized for "American" interests at all, but rather for foreign ones. This information can be had as a matter of public record so I strongly suggest you answer truthfully because I intend to send this to you as an attested affidavit and I also intend to share this information (my letter to you as I write it now), along with your nearly 3 Billion dollar assessment against me with local and national newspapers, who will also be given copies of my return receipts should they think it newsworthy, so look for whatever press coverage I can muster, because failing to answer my questions, which I have a Legal Right to have, will, if I can help it, create a media circus in which I seriously doubt I will be perceived as the "clown".
True or False = The I.R.S. is not allowed to state that they collect taxes for the United States Treasury. They only ever "refer" to "The Treasury".
Therefore, not some, but quite literally all monies paid, by "Americans", go out of the country to do whatever the International Monetary Fund deems appropriate, yes, or no?
Be reminded that these are all issues I intend to get answers for from as many judges and juries as it takes, even if it means taking it to the highest court in the land.
Since 1995, and with cooperation of the OMB, the I.R.S. has knowingly violated the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act by failing to obtain and print valid OMB control numbers on Form 1040 and other Forms.
The I.R.S. follows the policy of unlawfully prosecuting, penalizing, and prosecuting individuals for failing to file 1040, rather than admitting that the 1040 serves as a "bootleg" form due to its violation of Federal Law by not bearing a valid OMB control number.
Examples of I.R.S. violations of the PRA Section 3506(c)(1)(B)(iii), the "Section" that "Mandates" that the 1040 form must inform the recipient of:
(I) The reasons the information that is being collected;
(II) The way such information is to be used;
(III) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the burden of the collection;
(IV) Wether the responses of the collection of information are "voluntary", required to
obtain a benefit, are "mandatory", and;
(V) The fact that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a 1040 form unless it displays a valid control number.
(Yes or no? Simple question)...
That being issued in accordance with the REQUIREMENTS of the PRA.
Do I need to extrapolate upon other violations by the I.R.S. pursuant to 3507(a)(1)(C), or that the clearance packages that the I.R.S. submits to the OMB makes absolutely no mention of I.R.C. Section 1, 61, 63, 6011, 6012, 6091, 7203, or any of the other "Sections" that Federal Judges alternately cite as "The" Authority that authorizes the I.R.S. to collect information via the 1040?
Then there's PRA Section 3507(g) and 5 CFR Section 1320.8(b)(1), and let's not forget 3512,
titled "Public Protection", which I am certain you are either familiar with or can effetively become so with the click of a button thanks to these marvelous computers that store, catalog and collate information so it is, quite literally, at your fingertips. I suggest it as recommended reading before you attempt to further your collection attempts against me.
The instructions for OMB Form 83-I, which the I.R.S. must use in submitting its request for approval of the 1040 Form and an OMB Control Number, require each agency to submit with the form a "Supporting Statement" which is also to "Identify any Legal or Administrative Requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate Section of each Statute and Regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information". The Supporting Statement must also include information regarding the "Burden" imposed upon the public as a result of the "collection of information". Interesting, no?
To date I can honestly say that, by Law, I have never seen a "Legal/Lawful" 1040/1040A Form in my life given the information I have just provided.
If my "assessments" are in error, then please cite, Chapter and Verse ( as I have been doing for you) where and how I am incorrect in any of my discernations so as to allow for a mutual understanding/aggreement between ourselves so that this unfortunate incident might be clarified and the situation resolved.
Reminder: Section 3512, as authorized by Congress, provides protection pursuant to this Section that may be raised in the form of a complete defense at any time during an agencies administrative process (such as an I.R.S. Tax Court or Collection and Due Process Hearing) or during a "Judicial" proceeding.
So I must find that I aggree with the summations of Devvy Kidd, who, through extensive personal research has more than adequately determined that the I.R.S. has never been created by an "Act" of Congress and therefore has no power to "lawfully" lay any "Taxes" upon the "American Peoples" as it is an entity specifically designed to operate "Outside" of the "Union" we know as the United States of America.
"I" believe that the Law should be plain and easily understood by the people to whom it applies.
I also believe that the Government must obey and not be above the Laws according to such intent as is clearly expressed by the Framers of the Law -- the Representatives of the "People".
To allow Government agencies to just "do what it takes", in spite of the clear intent of the Law
or because the Law itself has been made "Incomprehensible", is to abandon honesty, to act cowardly, and to betray future generations into a State of helplessness and hopelessness at the mercy of an unrestrained government and a system of "Law" which is arbitrary, "Incomprehensible", and largely misapplied or downright/willfully ignored.
I have been "dismissed" by agents of your organization in the past as for wanting to "Debate" the Law. I merely present the facts as I have come to understand them. This is where the "true" "evasion" occurs, by personnel at your agency who totally/completely deny me my "guaranteed" 5th Amendment Rights to FULL DISCLOSURE.
Other cases I intend to quote should we come to court together are that of Lloyd Long, Ray and Dixie Powell, the Hardy brothers, Danny Hashimoto, Franklin Sanders, Gabe Scott, and a huge case involving 17 people in Tennessee, among others...
Did you know that a careful study and comparison of 26 USC 441(a) & (b), 6012(a)(1), and 7701(a)(14) will easily reveal that without a specific "Law" which would make a "Person" "Subject to" or "Liable for the Payment of" a particular Internal Revenue Tax, it is virtually "Impossible" to be a "Taxpayer", have a "Taxable Income" or a "Taxable Year"?
Is this something you were aware of before you "assessed" against me?
Based upon your recent activities in wrongfully/unlawfully assessing a "Tax" against me through apparent misuse/misapplication of the Codes and Regulations of which you are supposed to be aware, and upon which your salary depends, it appears to me that you are acting upon the "Assumption" that I am a "Taxpayer" who has "Delinquent Tax Liabilities".
To that end I hereby formally request, yet again, and for the umpteenth time, that you provide me with a legal basis derived from Title 26, United States Code and its implementing regulations for this "assumption" on your part. Absence of such a legal basis throws the legality of your attempts at collection under no small amount of doubt, and is little more than extortion under the color of Law -- Indeed, a flagrant violation of 26 USC 7214.
If you are unmoved by this line of thought and the incontrovertible evidences I have carefully considered and presented, then would you please explain to me how you justify your behavior before the letter of the Law, before God, and perhaps even your own conscience?
During my intensive study of the tax code (preciptated by what I consider to be false/illegal assumptions on your part and the parts of others) I find that I can only find the word "Liable" used clearly and specifically in Sections 4401(c), 5505(a), and 1461 which create unmistakeable liabilities for wagering tax, distilled spirits tax, tobacco tax, and "income" tax,
respectively. Section 1461 is the ONLY Section in the Internal Revenue Code specifically "Imposing" a "Liability" for "Income" tax. That Section applies toward "withholding agents" only (those "required" by 1441 to deduct and withhold from payments of "Income" owed to foreign persons), therefore it is incumbent upon you to administer the Laws as the Laws specifically apply and not as you "assume" that they do.
Are you a "Criminal Investigator"? Yes or no?
If so I would refer you to Internal Revenue Manual 1132.75 (12-21-87). According to this Section of the Internal Revenue Manual the Criminal Investigation Division enforces the criminal statute... involving United States Citizens residing in foreign countries and non-resident aliens subject to income tax filing requirements...".
26 USC 7214(a) clearly imposes substantial penalties upon any Revenue Officer who is guilty of willful oppression under the color of Law, knowingly demands other or greater sums than are authorized by Law (like the nearly 3 Billion dollars I "allegedly" owe according to a letter I received from the Treasury Department), or attempts to collect... ...except as expressly authorized by Law to do so.
These are very strict and legal constraints that you must carefully consider before any further attempts on your part to assert your, apparently, unfounded "assumtions" wherein you seem to have arbitrarily concluded that "I" have a "Tax" Liability.
For the record I want to say that I take umbrage at the lable you have likely hung me with, such as a "Tax Protestor". I do not "Protest" the "Tax", per se. I "Protest" your attempts at the apparently misguided/unlawful attempts to collect same from me as I have neither a tax liability nor a filing requirement as you purport to understand them under the "Law" where these "alleged" (assumed) "taxes" are concerned.
Given what I have come to understand I find I can only rely upon my own, extensive study of the "Tax Laws and Codes" (especially since no one within your organization will comply to my Lawful requests for Full Disclosure of informations that are my Right, by Law, to have). To that end I feel I can safely say that I am most certainly NOT a "Taxpayer" as that term is defined in 26 USC, and the "alleged" liabilities which you are trying to collect from me have been concocted through gross misapplications of Internal Revenue Laws.
Title 5 CFR 293.311 (Code of Federal Regulations), I believe, will allow me to ascertain the information regarding your status within the bureau, and I am aware that an I.R.S. Agent cannot be "served" a "summons/subpoena" at "work", therefore, since you seem to have no reluctance towards what is apparent to me to be a blatant misuse of your "alleged" authority, it is therefore incumbent upon myself to know your home mailing address so that you might be duly served should the situation come down to that. Since I have made you aware of my knowledge that I know you cannot be served at work and you seem intent on denying me my Guaranteed Constitutional Rights, it is incumbent upon you to provide same for Full Disclosure purposes as well since you seem intent on violating my Civil Rights and denying me the information I require to assess the legality of what you have assessed against me.
Now, with regard to your investigating me and my personal affairs I would refer you to 26 USC 7608(a). It is CLEAR from this Section that Revenue Enforcement Officers have authority for enforcement of Sub-Title "E", and other Laws pertaining to liquor, tobacco, and firearms.
Is it, therefore, your contention that I have a "Tax Liability" under this Section?
Inasmuch as your recent "Notices of Levy" that I received I believe I pointed out that there was a complete disregard for 26 UCS 6331(a), I felt the need to reiterate this as it seems to continue to pertain to the "Scope" of which you are mandated by Law to follow. And what would you "Levy" anyway, my food stamps?
As I am still in recovery and still in need of another surgery so I don't see how such levies (which I recently discovered have to be renewed monthly to be lawfully in effect) can possibly be effectual even if they were based in legality, which, of course, they are not.
26 CFR, 601.103(a) is the only place that tells us who is "Required" to file a return, provided that person has been duly/properly "Noticed" by the District Director to KEEP RECORDS AND THEN NOTICED THAT HE/SHE IS REQUIRED TO FILE". It states, "In general, each taxpayer (or person required to collect and pay over the taxes) is required to file a prescribed form of return".
As stated before, I have NEVER been duly/legally "Noticed", therefore what you contend applies to me cannot possibly apply to me, hence my continued contention that "I" do NOT have any "Tax Liability" or "Filing Requirement" which you seem determined to tell me (but NOT PROVE to me) I have.
So, to date, as I have NEVER received such a "Notice" from any "District Director", so if you would be so kind as to forward my information to him/her so that he/she can effectively do so and therefore lawfully establish the tax and the filing requirements you seem intent on alleging I have, then I am sure we can come to a mutual understanding and this issue will be resolved without any further conflicts.
Apparently, and according to my recent findings where "Tax" Laws are concerned, we are only "subject" to the laws of JURISDICTION which we "Volunteer" to accept. In the "Law" governing "Income" tax, "Income" is defined as foreign earned income, offshore oil well, or windfall and war profits.
I fall under none of these and therefore cannot possibly be a "Taxpayer" as defined in the specifications of the Law mentioned above.
Be advised that, if taken to trial, I shall (not to be construed as "May") take the necessary steps to ensure that the Federal Register is admitted into evidence.
Rule 44 CFR says that every regulation or rule must be published in the Federal Register. It also states that every regulation or rule MUST be approved by the Secretary of the Treasury. If there is no "regulation" (which cannot broaden, extend, or narrow any provisions of any "Laws") there is no implementation of said "Law".
There is NO REGULATION governing "Failure to file a return". There is no "computer Code" for "Failure to file". The ONLY thing I could find was a requirement stating "where to file" an income tax return. It can be found in 26 CFR, Section 1.6091-3, which states that, "Income tax returns 'required to be filed' with the 'Director' of 'INTERNATIONAL' Operations" (takes us back to that whole United Nations/Interpol thing again, doesn't it? You remember, the one that continuously sends all "American" "Income Tax" dollars to other countries as directed by the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund...).
DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY: NO ONE IN THE GOVERNMENT IS ALLOWED TO DO ANYTHING UNLESS THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN SPECIFIC, WRITTEN AUTHORITY, OR SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN GIVEN AUTHORITY WITHIN THE "LAW", GIVES THAT PERSON A DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY ORDER SPELLING OUT EXACTLY WHAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT DO UNDER THAT SPECIFIC ORDER.
To that end I ask from whence you, specifically, have derived your "Duly Delegated Authority" to "levy" and "assess" to my detriment and provide me with the pertinent information regarding same forthwith so that I might better understand/appreciate your position or see to your potential prosecution for what you have "assumed" to be my alleged liabilities.
Delegation Order Number 115 (Rev. 5) of May 12, 1986 is the ONLY delegation of "authority" to conduct an "audit". It states that the I.R.S. and the B.A.T.F. can ONLY audit themselves and only for the amount of $750.00 or less. Any amount above that amount MUST BE AUDITED BY THE CONTROLLER GENERAL according to Title 31 USC. No other authority to audit exists (so therefore you cannot have "Legally" "Audited" me). No I.R.S. or B.A.T.F. agent, or representative seems to be able/willing to furnish any Law, Rule, or Regulation which gives them the specific authority to audit anyone other than themselves. Order Number 191 states that they can levy on Property, but ONLY if that Property is in the hands of third parties. So since I not only, quite literally, have nothing you could "Levy" to begin with, I, especially, don't have anything in the hands of any "Third Parties", so you might want to reconsider any attempt at such an enforcement (not just because it is "Illegal" on its face...) because it will be a huge waste of your time and some foreign countries' ("American") money.
If this is incorrect or if I have "copied and pasted" incorrectly or in any way have misinterpreted the Law, then I would appreciate any actions/informations on your part that will help to clarify this "Incomprehensible", convoluted, misused/misapplied/misleading array of gobbledygook that I am getting migraines over as I attempt to wade through the facts and fallacies that is the Infernal Revenue Code.
I have heard that there are proposed changes to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures before Congress. Can you tell me if there have been any changes made to said rule or is the letter of its' "Law" still, effectively, in place as it was during the trial of Former Criminal Investigator for the Internal Revenue, Joe Bannister, who was, essentially, forced to quit the I.R.S. after coming to a personal revelation that it (the I.R.S.) was crooked to its core and he could no longer, in good conscience, continue to "work" for same?
It can be said that the I.R.S. has a moral responsibility, however, in reality, there is a difference between a moral responsibility, and a legal obligation. Therefore, ethical questions may be reduced to the actual "intent" or the "frame of mind" of any given agent who mistakenly exercises such authority. Certainly, the I.R.S. Agent has a moral responsibility to refrain from misusing authority, but if he or she is unaware of the limitations (remember "Incomprehensible"?) of that authority, then technically, that actual legal obligation to make a correct dertermination and accept that authority (if appropriate) or not accept that authority (if inappropriate) remains that of the third party.
Would you please comment on this for me?
It is equally important to understand that despite this ethical "loophole " which would seem to exonerate and provide an escape for an Agent "errantly" exercising a "presumed " authority, there are other provisions that do hold them responsible for its administration. Specifically, these provisions deal with what is called "delegation orders " (as mentioned earlier) because no Agent may administer a provision of Law without a proper order "Duly Delegating" such "Authority".
The authority to "administer " the provisions of 6331, regardless of its applicability, is further restricted by national and local "delegation orders " designed to ensure Agency compliance with the limited applications of the law.
The "limited applications of the law". I think we both know what that means now.
As long as there is an "Illusion" of "Authority" it is easy for an I.R.S. Agent to justify (in his/her own mind) that certain "actions" are within the "scope" of their "presumed" authority, and as mentioned previously the "delegation orders " do list another "authority ". Specifically the "IR Manual ". But now that new research has revealed that at least six courts have ruled that the "Manual" does NOT have the force of Law then it stands to reason that these rogue agents are going to be forced to swallow yet another "wake-up" pill, or as I like to put it, John Q. Public is now finally getting what they need to open up a can of "Act Right" where it comes to the reckless I.R.S. abuses and the organizations overzealous and/or downright ignorant agents (like the one that assessed a nearly 3 Billion dollar debt against me...).
Lurhing v. Glotzbach, 304 F2d 360 (4th Circuit, 1962); "The courts have correctly ruled that the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code are only "directory in nature " and NOT "Mandatory" (if this has been changed or overturned please advise me as to the specific "case law" to which said changes may have occurred).
I could go on, but I have to just open the door for the submission of these kinds of cases in court before fully presenting them to you via witnessed/certified and attested mail, I just want to drive the point home that while you think "I" am "Chum" swimming with Sharks, you are, in fact, swimming with a growing number of informed Orcas, so it boils down to a simple choice. Prosecute me for what you contend I am guilty of, or recheck your data, acknowledge your limitations, and adhere to the letter and the true intent of the Law and then act accordingly.
It is my hope that my discernations will prove to you that I am (now) more than just "aware" of the Laws and Regulations as they apply to me, that I am completely aware of the "Limitations" placed upon you by that "Law", and that I am in no way in violation of any "Laws", but the same, I am afraid, cannot be said for you and I will most certainly prosecute you and your organization to the fullest extent of the Law should you continue in your illegal and unwarranted harassments of my person by telling me I am "Liable" for what I am clearly not "Liable" for, and by sending me any more of your "alleged" "Deficiency" letters or threats of "Levy" ever again. Inasmuch as these are concerned, you can either provide me with the Full Disclosure I seek and which is mine by Rights of Due Process under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution of these United States or you will "Cease and Desist" from any further contact regarding my person in any way, shape, or form or I will unquestionably initiate proceedings against you and your organization in a true Court of Law.
In regard to your "Notice and Demand" which you feel you have sent to me (but is not the "required" form 17 or 17A - set as a "condition precedent" in "Shapiro v. Secretary of State"), the "non-judicial " collection authority is wholly dependent on a statute (Section 6321) which provides for a lien to automatically arise when a taxpayer fails to make a payment of a tax that is demanded via a "Notice and Demand " under Section 6303. If such "Demand " is not or cannot be made then a lien cannot automatically arise and subsequent collection activity cannot occur. All of the available Case Law confirms this. In Linwood Blackstone et.al., v. United States of America, (778 F.Supp 244 [D. Md. 1991]), the Court held that "The general rule is that no tax lien arises until the I.R.S. makes a (lawful) Demand for payment", and "Without a VALID "Notice and Demand " there can be no tax lien; without a tax lien, the I.R.S. cannot levy against the taxpayers property... ...this court concludes, consistent with the views found in Berman, Marvel, and Chila that the appropriate "sanction " against the I.R.S. for its' failure to comply with the 6303(a) notice and demand requirement is to take away its awesom non-judicial collection powers". Think about that.
I take that to mean that legal actions pursuant to Section 7403 cannot be enforced without said "Notice and Demand ". Would that assertion be correct?
Full disclosure of every step of how you prepared your "assessments" against me are mine by right of the Disclosure Laws as Guaranteed to me by the 5th Amendment of these United States, and as a citizen of the great State of Indiana, known to be a part of that marvelous Union, so I hereby formally request all information, interrogotories and admissions and, yet again, I hereby make another official, "formal" 6203 request that (I'm hoping) might reflect something other than the nearly 3 Billion dollar debt I "allegedly" owe, which, to me, is nothing more than a tragic punchline to an even more tragic misapplication of the Law and/or (willfull?) abuse of power and authority. Perhaps it will finally reflect my "actual" "debt" where it comes to the "Tax Laws" as they apply to me. $0.00...
I tire of this game of "letter tag". I "qualify" for a "Local Jury trial" (infinitely preferable), and while it may seem that you intend to take "me" to court, I assure you it is the other way around.
At this point it is like a game of Texas Holdem. I have graciously put most of my cards on the table. I don't know your "hold" cards and you don't know mine, so the question becomes "are you ready to ante up, or not"?
I have, in good faith, replied to, literally, every letter I have ever received by your organization and have largely been ignored or been treated rudely or as an incompetent or a debater, and not worth the agents "time" to speak to me as the "frivolity" of my arguements are, allegedly, numerous and not worth their time to effectively want to answer.
That is why you are receiving this as a "witnessed" document.
I hereby swear and/or affirm that I, in good faith, fully and completely believe that the tax laws as they are written do not apply to me and I feel I have submitted more than enough information to clear this "question" up forever.
However, if you continue to unlawfully harass me and give me the kind of headaches I have experienced in assimilating and extrapolating the information I have spent countless hours in preparation of, then I will no longer be gracious, and will bring suit against every agent whose name and identification numbers appear on every letter I have ever received from your organization.
I am not a "Taxpayer" as defined under the Law. I have neither a "Tax Liability" nor a "Filing Requirement". I feel I have proven this beyons all doubt.
I have made legal and Lawful requests for information it is my Legal Right to have and which, by Law, you cannot deny me.
I fully expect YOUR compliance where these issues are concerned and I wait with bated breath for your answers concerning same.
You now have the "30 days" as Mandated to you by your own Regulations to adequately report and fully respond to all of my Lawful requests for the Full Disclosure information regarding all the "hows, whys, and wherefores" concerning my "alleged" "Tax Liabilities" and "Filing Requirments".
If you continue to ignore my "lawful" requests for "Full Disclosure" and if I have not received anything from you within the 30 day time frame stipulated above and mandated by your own regulations I will presume that that I have neither a "Tax Liability" nor a "Filing Requirement" and I shall fully expect to never hear from anyone from your organization ever again.
If I do hear from anyone in your organization again, in any way, shape, or form, after that time frame has expired I shall immediately file against you in a District Court and seek the kind of damages allowed to me by Law for "Reckless Collection" attempts and I will drag you and your policies down Main Street USA for all to see and hear.
I am a Patriot. I served my Country. I am one step away from being homeless and you purport to want to take what I don't even have and seem to also think I am indebted to you to the tune of nearly 3 Billion dollars for "Taxes, Penalties, and Interest", all which seem to have been applied in complete disregard of Section 6501(c)(3), and, for all intents and purposes, will seem like the ultimate "punchline" to a Jury of MY Peers - another "Entitlement".
I have studied, in-depth, and carefully considered all informations I have presented to you and which you have (in a highly "limited" and "Incomprehensible" way) presented to me.
If I am incorrect in any of my assertions you now have 30 days with which you can adequately inform me of said "incorrectness" in an effort to get me to change my stance and PROVE your assertions.
Failure to do so within the specified time frame and I win by default. If I am wrong and you can, effectively, PROVE that, then by all means, do so and I will be happy to comply.
And as this "Document" has been "Attested", it and all it's information contained herein is a duly signed and sworn affidavit and is therefore admissible in any court and, more imprtantly, made available to the aforementioned Jury of my Peers.
Check.
Your move.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Friday, March 23, 2007
Martial Law
Bush Paves the Way for Martial Law: 2007 National Defense Authorization Act overturns Posse Comitatus Act
Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:18:00
http://www.rwor.org/a/083/martial-en.html (Credit: Globalresearch.ca)
"Paradoxically, preserving liberty may require the rule of a single leader--a dictator--willing to use those dreaded 'extraordinary measures,' which few know how, or are willing, to employ." -- Michael Ledeen, White House advisor and fellow of the American Enterprise Institute, "Machiavelli on Modern Leadership: Why Machiavelli's Iron Rules Are As Timely and Important Today As Five Centuries Ago"
"Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government." -- NewsMax, November 21, 2003
In October 2006, Bush signed into law the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. Quietly slipped into the law at the last minute, at the request of the Bush administration, were sections changing important legal principles, dating back 200 years, which limit the U.S. government's ability to use the military to intervene in domestic affairs. These changes would allow Bush, whenever he thinks it necessary, to institute martial law--under which the military takes direct control over civilian administration.
Sec. 1042 of the Act, "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies," effectively overturns what is known as posse comitatus. The Posse Comitatus Act is a law, passed in 1878, that prohibits the use of the regular military within the U.S. borders. The original passage of the Posse Comitatus Act was a very reactionary move that sealed the betrayal of Black people after the Civil War and brought the period of Reconstruction to an end. It decreed that federal troops could no longer be used inside the former Confederate states to enforce the new legal rights of Black people. Black people were turned over to the armed police and Klansmen serving the southern plantation owners, and the long period of Jim Crow began.
During the 20th century, posse comitatus objectively started to play a new role within the bourgeois democratic framework: as a legal barrier to the direct influence of the powerful military establishment and the armed forces over domestic U.S. society. It served to some degree as an obstacle against military coups and presidents seizing military control over the country. (However, National Guard troops have been legally available to the ruling class for use inside the U.S., and there have been other loopholes to the prohibition of the use of armed forces domestically, as in the mobilization of Marine troops during the 1992 L.A. Rebellion.)
So the changes to posse comitatus signed into law by Bush are extremely significant and ominous. Bush has modified the main exemptions to posse comitatus that up to now have been primarily defined by the Insurrection Act of 1807. Previously the president could call out the army in the United States only in cases of insurrection or conditions where "rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings." Under the new law the president can use the military in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist attack or "other condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order."
The new law requires the President to notify Congress "as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days thereafter during the duration of the exercise of the authority." However Bush, as he has often done during his presidency, modified this requirement in his signing statement, which declared, "The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, the national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive." In other words, Bush claims that he does not even need to inform Congress that martial law has been declared!
Changing Role of Military Within the U.S.
This major change in the criteria under which martial law can be declared is a continuation of a process, begun after 9/11, to dismantle legal barriers to unrestrained executive, presidential powers.
In 2002, the government created the new Northern Command. This is the first time since the Civil War that the U.S. military has been given an operational command inside the continental United States.
In 2005, the Washington Post reported that Northcom had developed battle plans for martial law in the U.S. One secret document, CONPLAN 2005, envisions 15 different scenarios where these plans could go into effect.
The U.S. has also used natural disasters like Katrina to push for an increased role for the military. According to the Washington Post, Bush advisor Karl Rove told the governor of Louisiana that she should explore legal options to impose martial law "or as close as we can get."
Spying by the military against U.S. persons, also supposedly prohibited, has greatly expanded in recent years. Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA) was created in 2002 supposedly to evaluate threats against Department of Defense installations. However, a secret 400-page document obtained by MSNBC revealed that CIFA had spied on more than 1500 "suspicious incidents" during a ten-month period, including a meeting of Quakers to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools and an anti-war protest in Los Angeles.
James Risen has exposed in the New York Times and in his book State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration that the National Security Agency, which is under the Department of Defense, has been used in a massive campaign of illegal spying of U.S. citizens, including tapping phone calls and monitoring bank and financial records and the internet. (See Revolution #35, "Spies, Lies, Thugs and Torture.")
In 2006, the Military Commissions Act was passed which, in addition to legalizing torture, allows the president and military courts to declare anyone an enemy combatant without basic civil rights like habeas corpus.
Plans for massive detention centers are already being prepared. Pacific News Service reported that in early 2006, Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) received a $385 million contract from the Department of Homeland Security to build detention and processing facilities to be used "in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S. or to support the rapid development of new programs."
Would They Really Go That Far?
The Bush Regime's preparations for martial law are part of an extreme agenda. This is a regime that is setting out to create a world empire that is unchallenged and unchallengeable and has embarked on an endless war to bring this about. Along with this, they aim to restructure social relations in the U.S., doing away with many of the social and economic institutions that have characterized U.S. society since World War 2. Because of this extreme agenda, the Bush regime takes very seriously the possibility of jolts and ruptures and resistance and are preparing very extreme measures to deal with this.
On February 27, 1933, a fire broke out in the Reichstag (government) building in Germany. The next day Hitler and his Minister of the Interior Hermann Goering drafted the Reichstag Fire Decree, which suspended civil liberties and gave the central government total power. The decree was signed into law within days. After that point, opposition to Hitler became MUCH more difficult.
In the U.S. today, extreme measures much like the Reichstag Fire Decree are already being put into place--making it even more urgent that a determined struggle be waged to drive out the Bush regime and reverse this dangerous trajectory.
Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:18:00
http://www.rwor.org/a/083/martial-en.html (Credit: Globalresearch.ca)
"Paradoxically, preserving liberty may require the rule of a single leader--a dictator--willing to use those dreaded 'extraordinary measures,' which few know how, or are willing, to employ." -- Michael Ledeen, White House advisor and fellow of the American Enterprise Institute, "Machiavelli on Modern Leadership: Why Machiavelli's Iron Rules Are As Timely and Important Today As Five Centuries Ago"
"Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government." -- NewsMax, November 21, 2003
In October 2006, Bush signed into law the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. Quietly slipped into the law at the last minute, at the request of the Bush administration, were sections changing important legal principles, dating back 200 years, which limit the U.S. government's ability to use the military to intervene in domestic affairs. These changes would allow Bush, whenever he thinks it necessary, to institute martial law--under which the military takes direct control over civilian administration.
Sec. 1042 of the Act, "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies," effectively overturns what is known as posse comitatus. The Posse Comitatus Act is a law, passed in 1878, that prohibits the use of the regular military within the U.S. borders. The original passage of the Posse Comitatus Act was a very reactionary move that sealed the betrayal of Black people after the Civil War and brought the period of Reconstruction to an end. It decreed that federal troops could no longer be used inside the former Confederate states to enforce the new legal rights of Black people. Black people were turned over to the armed police and Klansmen serving the southern plantation owners, and the long period of Jim Crow began.
During the 20th century, posse comitatus objectively started to play a new role within the bourgeois democratic framework: as a legal barrier to the direct influence of the powerful military establishment and the armed forces over domestic U.S. society. It served to some degree as an obstacle against military coups and presidents seizing military control over the country. (However, National Guard troops have been legally available to the ruling class for use inside the U.S., and there have been other loopholes to the prohibition of the use of armed forces domestically, as in the mobilization of Marine troops during the 1992 L.A. Rebellion.)
So the changes to posse comitatus signed into law by Bush are extremely significant and ominous. Bush has modified the main exemptions to posse comitatus that up to now have been primarily defined by the Insurrection Act of 1807. Previously the president could call out the army in the United States only in cases of insurrection or conditions where "rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings." Under the new law the president can use the military in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist attack or "other condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order."
The new law requires the President to notify Congress "as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days thereafter during the duration of the exercise of the authority." However Bush, as he has often done during his presidency, modified this requirement in his signing statement, which declared, "The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, the national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive." In other words, Bush claims that he does not even need to inform Congress that martial law has been declared!
Changing Role of Military Within the U.S.
This major change in the criteria under which martial law can be declared is a continuation of a process, begun after 9/11, to dismantle legal barriers to unrestrained executive, presidential powers.
In 2002, the government created the new Northern Command. This is the first time since the Civil War that the U.S. military has been given an operational command inside the continental United States.
In 2005, the Washington Post reported that Northcom had developed battle plans for martial law in the U.S. One secret document, CONPLAN 2005, envisions 15 different scenarios where these plans could go into effect.
The U.S. has also used natural disasters like Katrina to push for an increased role for the military. According to the Washington Post, Bush advisor Karl Rove told the governor of Louisiana that she should explore legal options to impose martial law "or as close as we can get."
Spying by the military against U.S. persons, also supposedly prohibited, has greatly expanded in recent years. Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA) was created in 2002 supposedly to evaluate threats against Department of Defense installations. However, a secret 400-page document obtained by MSNBC revealed that CIFA had spied on more than 1500 "suspicious incidents" during a ten-month period, including a meeting of Quakers to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools and an anti-war protest in Los Angeles.
James Risen has exposed in the New York Times and in his book State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration that the National Security Agency, which is under the Department of Defense, has been used in a massive campaign of illegal spying of U.S. citizens, including tapping phone calls and monitoring bank and financial records and the internet. (See Revolution #35, "Spies, Lies, Thugs and Torture.")
In 2006, the Military Commissions Act was passed which, in addition to legalizing torture, allows the president and military courts to declare anyone an enemy combatant without basic civil rights like habeas corpus.
Plans for massive detention centers are already being prepared. Pacific News Service reported that in early 2006, Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) received a $385 million contract from the Department of Homeland Security to build detention and processing facilities to be used "in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S. or to support the rapid development of new programs."
Would They Really Go That Far?
The Bush Regime's preparations for martial law are part of an extreme agenda. This is a regime that is setting out to create a world empire that is unchallenged and unchallengeable and has embarked on an endless war to bring this about. Along with this, they aim to restructure social relations in the U.S., doing away with many of the social and economic institutions that have characterized U.S. society since World War 2. Because of this extreme agenda, the Bush regime takes very seriously the possibility of jolts and ruptures and resistance and are preparing very extreme measures to deal with this.
On February 27, 1933, a fire broke out in the Reichstag (government) building in Germany. The next day Hitler and his Minister of the Interior Hermann Goering drafted the Reichstag Fire Decree, which suspended civil liberties and gave the central government total power. The decree was signed into law within days. After that point, opposition to Hitler became MUCH more difficult.
In the U.S. today, extreme measures much like the Reichstag Fire Decree are already being put into place--making it even more urgent that a determined struggle be waged to drive out the Bush regime and reverse this dangerous trajectory.
Monday, March 19, 2007
New twist in tale of BSE's beginnings
New twist in tale of BSE's beginnings
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11395-new-twist-in-tale-of-bses-beginnings.html
* 10:27 18 March 2007
* NewScientist.com news service
* Debora MacKenzie
THE discovery that a rare brain disease in cows can mutate into BSE has given new life to the theory that mad cow disease started out in cattle, rather than crossing over from sheep.
When BSE emerged in British cattle in the mid-1980s, the leading theory was that they had initially contracted the disease by eating feed containing the remains of sheep infected with scrapie. Both BSE and scrapie are caused by infectious prions, misshapen forms of a normal brain protein. Having made this species jump, BSE would have spread as cattle carcasses were processed into animal fodder and fed back to cows.
Yet attempts to duplicate BSE by deliberately giving scrapie to cows have failed, and many countries included sheep remains in cattle feed without creating BSE. This has led some scientists to speculate that BSE arose as a rare spontaneous condition in cattle, which spread to other cows when they ate these animals' remains.
The new twist to the story comes from studies of a disease called bovine amyloidotic spongiform encephalopathy, or BASE. It was discovered in 2003, when two Italian cows, out of tens of thousands of European cattle screened for BSE at slaughter, were found to have a prion disease that seemed different from BSE. The BASE prion had a lower molecular weight and one, rather than two, sugars bound to it. The brains of cows with BASE were also damaged in different places from those with BSE, and had dense protein deposits called amyloid that are not seen in BSE. Similar prions have also turned up in France, Germany and Japan.
Fabrizio Tagliavini and his colleagues at the Carlo Besta Neurological Institute in Milan, Italy, have now injected material from the brains of cows with BSE or BASE into mice. In animals genetically altered to make cow PrP - the normal form of the prion protein - BSE and BASE produced different symptoms and brain damage, confirming that BASE is a different disease.
When Tagliavini injected material from the brains of cows with BASE into mice with normal mouse PrP, none developed symptoms and only one tested positive for a prion - which looked like BSE, not BASE. When brain material from this first groups of mice was injected into a second round of mice, all of them developed typical BSE (PLoS Pathogens, DOI: 10.1371/journal.ppat.0030031). In unpublished experiments, Tagliavini has shown that the conversion of BASE prion to BSE can also occur in the spleens of mice engineered to carry cow PrP.
If BASE can mutate into BSE, this could well be how mad cow disease emerged. "I think BASE is a natural prion disease of older cattle, which turned into BSE," says Tagliavini.
Another possibility is that BASE turned into BSE after cattle remains were fed to sheep. In preliminary research, Hubert Laude of INRA, the French national agricultural research agency, in Jouy-en-Josas says that he has got BASE to turn into BSE in mice engineered to carry sheep PrP, but not in mice with cow or human PrP.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11395-new-twist-in-tale-of-bses-beginnings.html
* 10:27 18 March 2007
* NewScientist.com news service
* Debora MacKenzie
THE discovery that a rare brain disease in cows can mutate into BSE has given new life to the theory that mad cow disease started out in cattle, rather than crossing over from sheep.
When BSE emerged in British cattle in the mid-1980s, the leading theory was that they had initially contracted the disease by eating feed containing the remains of sheep infected with scrapie. Both BSE and scrapie are caused by infectious prions, misshapen forms of a normal brain protein. Having made this species jump, BSE would have spread as cattle carcasses were processed into animal fodder and fed back to cows.
Yet attempts to duplicate BSE by deliberately giving scrapie to cows have failed, and many countries included sheep remains in cattle feed without creating BSE. This has led some scientists to speculate that BSE arose as a rare spontaneous condition in cattle, which spread to other cows when they ate these animals' remains.
The new twist to the story comes from studies of a disease called bovine amyloidotic spongiform encephalopathy, or BASE. It was discovered in 2003, when two Italian cows, out of tens of thousands of European cattle screened for BSE at slaughter, were found to have a prion disease that seemed different from BSE. The BASE prion had a lower molecular weight and one, rather than two, sugars bound to it. The brains of cows with BASE were also damaged in different places from those with BSE, and had dense protein deposits called amyloid that are not seen in BSE. Similar prions have also turned up in France, Germany and Japan.
Fabrizio Tagliavini and his colleagues at the Carlo Besta Neurological Institute in Milan, Italy, have now injected material from the brains of cows with BSE or BASE into mice. In animals genetically altered to make cow PrP - the normal form of the prion protein - BSE and BASE produced different symptoms and brain damage, confirming that BASE is a different disease.
When Tagliavini injected material from the brains of cows with BASE into mice with normal mouse PrP, none developed symptoms and only one tested positive for a prion - which looked like BSE, not BASE. When brain material from this first groups of mice was injected into a second round of mice, all of them developed typical BSE (PLoS Pathogens, DOI: 10.1371/journal.ppat.0030031). In unpublished experiments, Tagliavini has shown that the conversion of BASE prion to BSE can also occur in the spleens of mice engineered to carry cow PrP.
If BASE can mutate into BSE, this could well be how mad cow disease emerged. "I think BASE is a natural prion disease of older cattle, which turned into BSE," says Tagliavini.
Another possibility is that BASE turned into BSE after cattle remains were fed to sheep. In preliminary research, Hubert Laude of INRA, the French national agricultural research agency, in Jouy-en-Josas says that he has got BASE to turn into BSE in mice engineered to carry sheep PrP, but not in mice with cow or human PrP.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Daylight Savings Time
I hate daylight savings time -- stupid idea. I still feel groggy. I get up at 4:30 as it is. So this morning I got up at 3:30, except we set the clocks forward, so it's supposedly 4:30. It's like jet lag without traveling. Annoys the fuck out of me.
Got myself up. Even the cats seemed stunned that it was so early. Got myself cleaned up and dressed. The kids were fairly easy to wake up. We went to the good bagel place and sat and had a bagel apiece. Very tasty. Got Cassidy to school. Went to the office supply place with Flynn to get him a tiny pencil sharpener. Driving him to his school he announced that he had to get his gym clothes at home. Arrgh. They've been clean and folded since Friday, Flynn! Why didn't you stick them in your backpack!? Anyway, he collected his gym clothes and I got him to school.
I feel dazed. It's just too early. I hate daylight savings time. Stupid idea.
So here I sit. I was shaking with fear again last night when I tried to go to sleep. I think that's why I'll often fall asleep in my desk chair or on the couch. When I lay down to go to sleep I worry about everything, sometimes to the point where I physically shake. Worry, worry, worry. So many things could go wrong. I ought to be happy that not more has gone wrong so far.
Another day. Another Monday. Stocks are up $50 today. Not bad. Tax preparation appointment next Monday. Hope I have my tax liability covered. I think that $2500 I had in a time account @ Wells Fargo got re-invested for another year. At 3.x%. Grr. What an annoyance. Grr.
Another day. Go check the WF web site and see if I have a message regarding that account.
Got myself up. Even the cats seemed stunned that it was so early. Got myself cleaned up and dressed. The kids were fairly easy to wake up. We went to the good bagel place and sat and had a bagel apiece. Very tasty. Got Cassidy to school. Went to the office supply place with Flynn to get him a tiny pencil sharpener. Driving him to his school he announced that he had to get his gym clothes at home. Arrgh. They've been clean and folded since Friday, Flynn! Why didn't you stick them in your backpack!? Anyway, he collected his gym clothes and I got him to school.
I feel dazed. It's just too early. I hate daylight savings time. Stupid idea.
So here I sit. I was shaking with fear again last night when I tried to go to sleep. I think that's why I'll often fall asleep in my desk chair or on the couch. When I lay down to go to sleep I worry about everything, sometimes to the point where I physically shake. Worry, worry, worry. So many things could go wrong. I ought to be happy that not more has gone wrong so far.
Another day. Another Monday. Stocks are up $50 today. Not bad. Tax preparation appointment next Monday. Hope I have my tax liability covered. I think that $2500 I had in a time account @ Wells Fargo got re-invested for another year. At 3.x%. Grr. What an annoyance. Grr.
Another day. Go check the WF web site and see if I have a message regarding that account.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Defense for AIPAC Duo Says Groups Refuse To Testify
http://www.forward.com/articles/defense-for-aipac-duo-says-groups-refuse-to-testif/
Defense for Aipac Duo Says Groups Refuse To Testify
Sources Cite Policy of Distancing Community From Ex-lobbyists
Nathan Guttman | Fri. Mar 09, 2007
Washington - Several Jewish organizations are refusing to cooperate with the defense in the case against two men accused of passing classified information while working for the main pro-Israel lobby.
According to sources close to the defense team, three major Jewish organizations are telling their employees not to testify on behalf of Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, former officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. The defense sources expressed disappointment over the alleged refusal to cooperate, describing it as yet another example of the organized Jewish community turning its back on Rosen, Aipac’s former policy director, and Weissman, its top Iran specialist.
Sources with the three Jewish groups, however, argue that it would be “premature” to characterize their answer as an outright refusal.
The Forward has learned that the appeal to the Jewish groups relates to a dinner meeting that took place three years ago. During the meeting, which was arranged by Rosen, he and officials at the three other Jewish organizations were briefed by a senior administration official on issues relating to the Middle East.
Sources said that testimony from the other officials who attended the dinner meeting would help make the case that the passing of information — even classified information — from government officials to Jewish organizations, as well as to other interest groups, was common practice in Washington. Such testimony, the defense team hopes, would convince a jury that Rosen and Weissman had no way of knowing they were engaged in any kind of illegal activity.
The identities of the administration official and the Jewish organizational representatives who participated in the meeting could not be confirmed for the record by the Forward.
Rosen, who was under FBI surveillance at the time, briefed his colleagues at AIPAC the next day about the meeting and about the information — presumably, some of it classified — that was shared by the government official.
After learning that the prosecution had records of the meeting, Rosen’s and Weissman’s defense teams contacted the three representatives of Jewish organizations who attended the meeting and asked them to testify as to the nature of the discussions. According to the defense sources, the three representatives — after consulting with their respective organizations — refused to cooperate. It is still possible that they will be called to testify, but such a step is unlikely, given the defense team’s strong reluctance to calling witnesses who do not want to cooperate.
One of the people who is believed to have been at the meeting said it would “not be a truly accurate description” to say he has refused to cooperate. The individual, who would not confirm or deny he was at the meeting, said that “it is premature” to conclude what would be the final response to the defense’s request for cooperation.
Another source, aware of the details of the case, said that it is a policy of other Jewish groups to try not to get involved in the legal proceedings regarding the two former AIPAC employees.
Until now, the Jewish community generally has distanced itself from Rosen and Weissman following their dismissal from AIPAC in early 2005. One exception is Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. Hoenlein has spoken out against the indictment of the two former AIPAC staffers.
Rosen and Weissman are accused of passing national defense information they received from former Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin to Israeli diplomats and members of the media. The case, which first erupted in August 2004, is now nearing its end, with a trial scheduled for early summer.
Judge T.S. Ellis III of the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va., is expected to rule by the end of next week on one of the last remaining pretrial issues: how to handle classified information. The prosecution has requested that once the trial begins, scheduled for June 4, any information relating to classified material be shared in a closed manner, with jurors hearing testimony through headphones and being handed documents without the public hearing or seeing the evidence. Furthermore, the jurors will be warned that the information they’ll be hearing is classified and that any disclosure of it would be against the law.
The government argues that these steps are needed in order to protect the secrecy of the information dealt with in the case. The defense, on the other hand, is asking to keep the trial as open as possible. According to the defense argument, telling the jury that the information is classified would prejudge the issue at the core of the case, which is whether the information conveyed by Rosen and Weissman was classified and of a nature that should not have been disclosed.
A decision in favor of the defense could delay the start of the trial, because the prosecution would have to produce nonclassified versions of the documents and information relating to the case.
The other big undecided issue concerns the list of witnesses who would be called to the stand.
The defense would like to call several high-profile witnesses, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley and senior officials from the State Department, the National Security Council and the Pentagon. The goal would be to prove that the government routinely passed information to AIPAC and that the practice was seen by all sides as legitimate.
Sources close to the case indicated that the defense intends to call senior AIPAC officials to the stand in order to prove that all actions taken by the two accused employees were authorized and acceptable.
Patrick Dorton, a spokesman for AIPAC, said that the organization was not advised about any request to have AIPAC employees testify, but “if any of our employees will be asked to testify, they will do so.”
Last month, Ellis ruled out the possibility of deposing three Israeli diplomats involved in the case. The judge found that there was no need to ask for depositions from the Israeli diplomats who were in touch with Rosen and Weissman, and that their testimony would not be crucial for the case.
AIPAC still has not reached an agreement with Rosen and Weissman’s attorneys over the payment of their legal fees. While early estimates said the total cost would be at least $4 million, sources close to the defense say that the lawyers’ fees have already exceeded $5 million and are expected to reach almost $8 million by the time the trial is over.
AIPAC, according to a source close to the organization, is willing to pay the legal fees but is conditioning the payment on Rosen and Weissman signing an agreement that would prevent them from suing the organization in the future. “We have repeatedly offered to sit with them and reach an agreement which will answer their needs,” the source said, adding that the two former staffers refused to sign any waiver ruling out future lawsuits.
Rosen and Weissman would like to preserve the right to sue AIPAC if issues regarding severance pay are not dealt with once the trial is over. Weissman is also expecting an apology from AIPAC, if he is acquitted.
Fri. Mar 09, 2007
Defense for Aipac Duo Says Groups Refuse To Testify
Sources Cite Policy of Distancing Community From Ex-lobbyists
Nathan Guttman | Fri. Mar 09, 2007
Washington - Several Jewish organizations are refusing to cooperate with the defense in the case against two men accused of passing classified information while working for the main pro-Israel lobby.
According to sources close to the defense team, three major Jewish organizations are telling their employees not to testify on behalf of Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, former officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. The defense sources expressed disappointment over the alleged refusal to cooperate, describing it as yet another example of the organized Jewish community turning its back on Rosen, Aipac’s former policy director, and Weissman, its top Iran specialist.
Sources with the three Jewish groups, however, argue that it would be “premature” to characterize their answer as an outright refusal.
The Forward has learned that the appeal to the Jewish groups relates to a dinner meeting that took place three years ago. During the meeting, which was arranged by Rosen, he and officials at the three other Jewish organizations were briefed by a senior administration official on issues relating to the Middle East.
Sources said that testimony from the other officials who attended the dinner meeting would help make the case that the passing of information — even classified information — from government officials to Jewish organizations, as well as to other interest groups, was common practice in Washington. Such testimony, the defense team hopes, would convince a jury that Rosen and Weissman had no way of knowing they were engaged in any kind of illegal activity.
The identities of the administration official and the Jewish organizational representatives who participated in the meeting could not be confirmed for the record by the Forward.
Rosen, who was under FBI surveillance at the time, briefed his colleagues at AIPAC the next day about the meeting and about the information — presumably, some of it classified — that was shared by the government official.
After learning that the prosecution had records of the meeting, Rosen’s and Weissman’s defense teams contacted the three representatives of Jewish organizations who attended the meeting and asked them to testify as to the nature of the discussions. According to the defense sources, the three representatives — after consulting with their respective organizations — refused to cooperate. It is still possible that they will be called to testify, but such a step is unlikely, given the defense team’s strong reluctance to calling witnesses who do not want to cooperate.
One of the people who is believed to have been at the meeting said it would “not be a truly accurate description” to say he has refused to cooperate. The individual, who would not confirm or deny he was at the meeting, said that “it is premature” to conclude what would be the final response to the defense’s request for cooperation.
Another source, aware of the details of the case, said that it is a policy of other Jewish groups to try not to get involved in the legal proceedings regarding the two former AIPAC employees.
Until now, the Jewish community generally has distanced itself from Rosen and Weissman following their dismissal from AIPAC in early 2005. One exception is Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. Hoenlein has spoken out against the indictment of the two former AIPAC staffers.
Rosen and Weissman are accused of passing national defense information they received from former Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin to Israeli diplomats and members of the media. The case, which first erupted in August 2004, is now nearing its end, with a trial scheduled for early summer.
Judge T.S. Ellis III of the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va., is expected to rule by the end of next week on one of the last remaining pretrial issues: how to handle classified information. The prosecution has requested that once the trial begins, scheduled for June 4, any information relating to classified material be shared in a closed manner, with jurors hearing testimony through headphones and being handed documents without the public hearing or seeing the evidence. Furthermore, the jurors will be warned that the information they’ll be hearing is classified and that any disclosure of it would be against the law.
The government argues that these steps are needed in order to protect the secrecy of the information dealt with in the case. The defense, on the other hand, is asking to keep the trial as open as possible. According to the defense argument, telling the jury that the information is classified would prejudge the issue at the core of the case, which is whether the information conveyed by Rosen and Weissman was classified and of a nature that should not have been disclosed.
A decision in favor of the defense could delay the start of the trial, because the prosecution would have to produce nonclassified versions of the documents and information relating to the case.
The other big undecided issue concerns the list of witnesses who would be called to the stand.
The defense would like to call several high-profile witnesses, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley and senior officials from the State Department, the National Security Council and the Pentagon. The goal would be to prove that the government routinely passed information to AIPAC and that the practice was seen by all sides as legitimate.
Sources close to the case indicated that the defense intends to call senior AIPAC officials to the stand in order to prove that all actions taken by the two accused employees were authorized and acceptable.
Patrick Dorton, a spokesman for AIPAC, said that the organization was not advised about any request to have AIPAC employees testify, but “if any of our employees will be asked to testify, they will do so.”
Last month, Ellis ruled out the possibility of deposing three Israeli diplomats involved in the case. The judge found that there was no need to ask for depositions from the Israeli diplomats who were in touch with Rosen and Weissman, and that their testimony would not be crucial for the case.
AIPAC still has not reached an agreement with Rosen and Weissman’s attorneys over the payment of their legal fees. While early estimates said the total cost would be at least $4 million, sources close to the defense say that the lawyers’ fees have already exceeded $5 million and are expected to reach almost $8 million by the time the trial is over.
AIPAC, according to a source close to the organization, is willing to pay the legal fees but is conditioning the payment on Rosen and Weissman signing an agreement that would prevent them from suing the organization in the future. “We have repeatedly offered to sit with them and reach an agreement which will answer their needs,” the source said, adding that the two former staffers refused to sign any waiver ruling out future lawsuits.
Rosen and Weissman would like to preserve the right to sue AIPAC if issues regarding severance pay are not dealt with once the trial is over. Weissman is also expecting an apology from AIPAC, if he is acquitted.
Fri. Mar 09, 2007
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Jumping down some brainwashed guy's throat
>...(Israel) wants to live in peace (long bleat about how Israel was "defending" itself by dropping a million plus cluster bombs on civilian population centers in southern Lebanon in August 2006)
Live in peace..? When has Israel EVER existed peacefully..?! Does Israel recognize the right of its neighbors to exist?! Put down the Kool-Aid, pal... you've been brainwashed since birth.
ANY OTHER COUNTRY ON EARTH would be thoroughly damned for pulling half the shit Israel gets away with. I don't really give a fuck what they do, BUT THEY'RE DOING IT ON US TAX MONEY AND WE'RE FUCKING B-R-O-K-E!!! So we're going to borrow another five billion from China to give to Israel..???? So they can buy our weapons, pretty much the only thing we mfg here any more, and bribe our politicians through AIPAC, JINSA, et al to keep that "foreign aid" money coming?!?!??!??!
WTF? Israel does not need foreign aid and has WAAAAAAAAY too much influence in Washington. Research it on your own. Start with the USS Liberty. Consider that AIPAC is staging a massive call-in this spring trying to get President Dagnabit to release convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard. His espionage undermined the entire US nuclear deterrent strategy, literally trillions of dollars of defense, he sold the US out. Lovely! With friends like Israel...
Oh, one more thing: Israel wanted the latest and greatest cluster bomb model from the US military, but we told them they had to use their remaining stock up first. So where did they drop the million plus cluster bombs? Southern Lebanon! AFTER THE CEASE FIRE WAS SIGNED!!! Sweet, eh?
Hey, remember that UN observation post the Israelis bombed? And those Lebanese ambulances with missile rounds fired through the red crosses on the tops? NICE WORK, BOYS!
Oh, and there was the recent Oslo conference seeking to ban cluster bombs, modeled on the Ottowa conference on land mine prohibition some time ago (97?). The US and Israel were two noteable countries which chose not to attend!
Cluster bombs are immoral and ought to be illegal.
Live in peace..? When has Israel EVER existed peacefully..?! Does Israel recognize the right of its neighbors to exist?! Put down the Kool-Aid, pal... you've been brainwashed since birth.
ANY OTHER COUNTRY ON EARTH would be thoroughly damned for pulling half the shit Israel gets away with. I don't really give a fuck what they do, BUT THEY'RE DOING IT ON US TAX MONEY AND WE'RE FUCKING B-R-O-K-E!!! So we're going to borrow another five billion from China to give to Israel..???? So they can buy our weapons, pretty much the only thing we mfg here any more, and bribe our politicians through AIPAC, JINSA, et al to keep that "foreign aid" money coming?!?!??!??!
WTF? Israel does not need foreign aid and has WAAAAAAAAY too much influence in Washington. Research it on your own. Start with the USS Liberty. Consider that AIPAC is staging a massive call-in this spring trying to get President Dagnabit to release convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard. His espionage undermined the entire US nuclear deterrent strategy, literally trillions of dollars of defense, he sold the US out. Lovely! With friends like Israel...
Oh, one more thing: Israel wanted the latest and greatest cluster bomb model from the US military, but we told them they had to use their remaining stock up first. So where did they drop the million plus cluster bombs? Southern Lebanon! AFTER THE CEASE FIRE WAS SIGNED!!! Sweet, eh?
Hey, remember that UN observation post the Israelis bombed? And those Lebanese ambulances with missile rounds fired through the red crosses on the tops? NICE WORK, BOYS!
Oh, and there was the recent Oslo conference seeking to ban cluster bombs, modeled on the Ottowa conference on land mine prohibition some time ago (97?). The US and Israel were two noteable countries which chose not to attend!
Cluster bombs are immoral and ought to be illegal.
Say, didn't we sell Israel those cluster bombs..?
Gambling with death in south Lebanon fields
by Sylvie Groult Sun Mar 4, 6:11 PM ET
AIN BAAL, Lebanon (AFP) - For weeks Ali Nasser waited for the bomb disposal team. But the arrival of spring left him no choice but to go to his fields, sown with hundreds of unexploded cluster bombs by the Israeli military last year.
The alternative is to lose the tobacco crop which provides the means of feeding his 11 children each year, and which normally brings him 10 million pounds (6,580 dollars, 5,000 euros).
"How can I feed my family? I can't wait, I must sow the crop," said this farmer in south Lebanon where hundreds more like him face a daily gamble with death in their own fields.
The United Nations estimates that "about a million cluster bombs which did not explode" are scattered across south Lebanon where they have killed 30 people and wounded 187 since the 34-day war ended last August 14.
But, said Nasser: "If I don't deliver the tobacco to the state, I have no money. So I continue to work -- each morning I go to the fields with my children."
Nasser, 54, found the first cluster bombs -- bomblets enclosed in a larger bomb which scatter on impact -- last year after the end of Israel's offensive against Lebanon and Shiite Hezbollah guerrillas.
"It was in August, seven days after the end of the war. I went with the whole family to our fields," he recalled. "My daughter discovered them, one shaped like a ball, another with a ribbon, and one which ressembled a telephone. She started laughing -- she did not know what they were."
He went for help to the UN's anti-mine coordination centre. "They came for a first time and told me they would return," the farmer said, adding that nothing happened.
By September he was getting desperate to attend to his plants and, on the advice of a neighbour, approached a Palestinian living in a nearby camp.
"For 100 dollars he worked for a whole day. He picked up bomblets and hurled them as far as he could so they exploded," Nasser said.
"Others he collected using sticky paper and depositing them in a fruit crate on a layer of straw. The crate stayed there for three days and then disappeared with the contents."
Relieved, Nasser went back to working with his tractor in the fields on the edge of Ain Baal village, near the port city of Tyre.
But early in February, cluster bombs started to reappear. Three surfaced, while Nasser suspects others still lurk buried in the soil.
"I returned to the anti-mine centre. The next day they came, took the three away and told me 'Don't touch your land, we are going to return' to clear it. I am still waiting," he said.
At the anti-mine centre, spokeswoman Dalya Farran said 855 areas with unexploded bomblets had been listed, and added that "more than 100,000 of these devices" have been recovered by the 63 teams, civilian and military, working to made the region safe again.
But the controversial weapons have continued to claim victims such as 15-year-old Ahmad Naji, who had attended a school lecture on the dangers of the bomblets just two weeks before he lost his left foot.
"The cluster bomb was hidden under a stone. It exploded when I put my foot on that," said the teenager, sitting at home in Batoulay village and wearing a gold medal he had earlier won for running, his favourite pastime.
The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has estimated that the Israeli offensive on Lebanon and the war with Hezbollah cost the country's agricultural sector 280 million dollars.
In the south, planted with tobacco and olive trees, the FAO says one quarter of cultivated land has been made unusable by unexploded munitions.
The United Nations has asked Israel for months -- in vain -- to tell it where the Jewish state's aircraft unleashed their deadly cargoes. "If the Israeli government had provided us with this information it would have greatly helped our work," said Farran.
Colonel Hendrik Van Sluijs, commander of the Belgian contingent of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), said the bomb-clearance focus had been first on inhabited areas and then on the fields to enable the people "to harvest, cultivate, to live."
"But as time passes, the work becomes increasingly difficult. With the rain, the land moves, objects are displaced, often becoming buried in soil; and as vegetation grows, the cluster bombs become invisible," he said.
After clearing up those lying on the surface "we explore each square centimetre, to a depth of about 20 centimetres (about eight inches) with mine- and metal-detectors," said the colonel.
He estimates that it will take "between six months and two years" to clear the region infested with the lethal, and widely condemned, munitions.
"But to clean it up 100 percent is impossible. The risk will always remain," he added.
by Sylvie Groult Sun Mar 4, 6:11 PM ET
AIN BAAL, Lebanon (AFP) - For weeks Ali Nasser waited for the bomb disposal team. But the arrival of spring left him no choice but to go to his fields, sown with hundreds of unexploded cluster bombs by the Israeli military last year.
The alternative is to lose the tobacco crop which provides the means of feeding his 11 children each year, and which normally brings him 10 million pounds (6,580 dollars, 5,000 euros).
"How can I feed my family? I can't wait, I must sow the crop," said this farmer in south Lebanon where hundreds more like him face a daily gamble with death in their own fields.
The United Nations estimates that "about a million cluster bombs which did not explode" are scattered across south Lebanon where they have killed 30 people and wounded 187 since the 34-day war ended last August 14.
But, said Nasser: "If I don't deliver the tobacco to the state, I have no money. So I continue to work -- each morning I go to the fields with my children."
Nasser, 54, found the first cluster bombs -- bomblets enclosed in a larger bomb which scatter on impact -- last year after the end of Israel's offensive against Lebanon and Shiite Hezbollah guerrillas.
"It was in August, seven days after the end of the war. I went with the whole family to our fields," he recalled. "My daughter discovered them, one shaped like a ball, another with a ribbon, and one which ressembled a telephone. She started laughing -- she did not know what they were."
He went for help to the UN's anti-mine coordination centre. "They came for a first time and told me they would return," the farmer said, adding that nothing happened.
By September he was getting desperate to attend to his plants and, on the advice of a neighbour, approached a Palestinian living in a nearby camp.
"For 100 dollars he worked for a whole day. He picked up bomblets and hurled them as far as he could so they exploded," Nasser said.
"Others he collected using sticky paper and depositing them in a fruit crate on a layer of straw. The crate stayed there for three days and then disappeared with the contents."
Relieved, Nasser went back to working with his tractor in the fields on the edge of Ain Baal village, near the port city of Tyre.
But early in February, cluster bombs started to reappear. Three surfaced, while Nasser suspects others still lurk buried in the soil.
"I returned to the anti-mine centre. The next day they came, took the three away and told me 'Don't touch your land, we are going to return' to clear it. I am still waiting," he said.
At the anti-mine centre, spokeswoman Dalya Farran said 855 areas with unexploded bomblets had been listed, and added that "more than 100,000 of these devices" have been recovered by the 63 teams, civilian and military, working to made the region safe again.
But the controversial weapons have continued to claim victims such as 15-year-old Ahmad Naji, who had attended a school lecture on the dangers of the bomblets just two weeks before he lost his left foot.
"The cluster bomb was hidden under a stone. It exploded when I put my foot on that," said the teenager, sitting at home in Batoulay village and wearing a gold medal he had earlier won for running, his favourite pastime.
The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has estimated that the Israeli offensive on Lebanon and the war with Hezbollah cost the country's agricultural sector 280 million dollars.
In the south, planted with tobacco and olive trees, the FAO says one quarter of cultivated land has been made unusable by unexploded munitions.
The United Nations has asked Israel for months -- in vain -- to tell it where the Jewish state's aircraft unleashed their deadly cargoes. "If the Israeli government had provided us with this information it would have greatly helped our work," said Farran.
Colonel Hendrik Van Sluijs, commander of the Belgian contingent of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), said the bomb-clearance focus had been first on inhabited areas and then on the fields to enable the people "to harvest, cultivate, to live."
"But as time passes, the work becomes increasingly difficult. With the rain, the land moves, objects are displaced, often becoming buried in soil; and as vegetation grows, the cluster bombs become invisible," he said.
After clearing up those lying on the surface "we explore each square centimetre, to a depth of about 20 centimetres (about eight inches) with mine- and metal-detectors," said the colonel.
He estimates that it will take "between six months and two years" to clear the region infested with the lethal, and widely condemned, munitions.
"But to clean it up 100 percent is impossible. The risk will always remain," he added.
Monday, March 05, 2007
LAWS OF CATDOM
LAWS OF CATDOM
1 - Law of Cat Inertia
A cat at rest will tend to remain at rest, unless acted upon by some outside force - such as the opening of cat food, or a nearby scurrying mouse.
2 - Law of Cat Motion
A cat will move in a straight line, unless there is a really good reason to change direction.
3 - Law of Cat
Magnetism All blue blazers and black sweaters attract cat hair in direct proportion to the darkness of the fabric.
4 - Law of Cat Thermodynamics
Heat flows from a warmer to a cooler body, except in the case of a cat, all heat flows to the cat.
5 - Law of Cat Stretching
A cat will stretch to a distance proportional to the length of the nap just taken.
6 - Law of Cat Sleeping
All cats must sleep with people whenever possible, in a position as uncomfortable for the people involved as is possible for the cat.
7 - Law of Cat Elongation
A cat can make her body long enough to reach just about any countertop, that has anything remotely interesting on it.
8 - Law of Cat Acceleration
A cat will accelerate at a constant speed, until he gets good and ready to stop.
9 - Law of Dinner Table Attendance
Cats must attend all meals when anything good is served.
10 - Law of Rug Configuration
No rug may remain in its naturally flat state, for very long.
11 - Law of Obedience Resistance
A cat's resistance varies in inverse proportion to a human's desire for her to do something.
12 - First Law of Energy Conservation
Cats know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed and will therefore use as little energy as possible.
13 - Second Law of Energy Conservation
Cats also know that energy can only be stored, by a lot of napping.
14 - Law of Refrigerator Observation
If a cat watches a refrigerator long enough, someone will come along and take out something good to eat.
15 - Law of Electric Blanket Attraction
Turn on an electric blanket and a cat will jump into bed at the speed of light.
16 - Law of Random Comfort
Seeking A cat will always seek, and usually take over, the most comfortable spot in any given room.
17 - Law of Bag / Box Occupancy
All bags and boxes in a given room must contain a cat within the earliest possible nanosecond.
18 - Law of Cat Embarrassment
A cat's irritation rises in direct proportion to her embarrassment times the amount of human laughter.
19 - Law of Milk Consumption
A cat will drink his weight in milk, squared, just to show you he can.
20 - Law of Furniture Replacement
A cats desire to scratch furniture is directly proportional to the cost of the furniture.
21 - Law of Cat Landing
A cat will always land in the softest place possible.
22 - Law of Fluid Displacement
A cat immersed in milk will displace her own volume, minus the amount of milk consumed.
23 - Law of Cat Disinterest
A cats interest level will vary in inverse proportion to the amount of effort a human expends in trying to interest him.
24 - Law of Pill Rejection
Any pill given to a cat has the potential energy to reach escape velocity.
25 - Law of Cat Composition
A cat is composed of Matter + Anti-Matter + It Doesn't Matter.
26 - Law of Selective Listening
Although a cat can hear a can of tuna being opened a mile away, she can't hear a simple command three feet away.
27 - Law of Equidistant Separation
All cats in a given room will locate at points equidistant from each other, and equidistant from the centre of the room.
28 - Law of Cat Invisibility
Cats think that if they can't see you, then you can't see them.
29 - Law of Space-Time
Continuum Given enough time, a cat will land in just about any space.
30 - Law of Concentration of Mass
A cat's mass increases in direct proportion to the comfort of the lap she occupies.
31 - Law of Cat Probability (Uncertainty Principle)
It is not possible to predict where a cat actually is, only the probability of where she "might" be.
32 - Law of Cat Obedience
As yet undiscovered.
1 - Law of Cat Inertia
A cat at rest will tend to remain at rest, unless acted upon by some outside force - such as the opening of cat food, or a nearby scurrying mouse.
2 - Law of Cat Motion
A cat will move in a straight line, unless there is a really good reason to change direction.
3 - Law of Cat
Magnetism All blue blazers and black sweaters attract cat hair in direct proportion to the darkness of the fabric.
4 - Law of Cat Thermodynamics
Heat flows from a warmer to a cooler body, except in the case of a cat, all heat flows to the cat.
5 - Law of Cat Stretching
A cat will stretch to a distance proportional to the length of the nap just taken.
6 - Law of Cat Sleeping
All cats must sleep with people whenever possible, in a position as uncomfortable for the people involved as is possible for the cat.
7 - Law of Cat Elongation
A cat can make her body long enough to reach just about any countertop, that has anything remotely interesting on it.
8 - Law of Cat Acceleration
A cat will accelerate at a constant speed, until he gets good and ready to stop.
9 - Law of Dinner Table Attendance
Cats must attend all meals when anything good is served.
10 - Law of Rug Configuration
No rug may remain in its naturally flat state, for very long.
11 - Law of Obedience Resistance
A cat's resistance varies in inverse proportion to a human's desire for her to do something.
12 - First Law of Energy Conservation
Cats know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed and will therefore use as little energy as possible.
13 - Second Law of Energy Conservation
Cats also know that energy can only be stored, by a lot of napping.
14 - Law of Refrigerator Observation
If a cat watches a refrigerator long enough, someone will come along and take out something good to eat.
15 - Law of Electric Blanket Attraction
Turn on an electric blanket and a cat will jump into bed at the speed of light.
16 - Law of Random Comfort
Seeking A cat will always seek, and usually take over, the most comfortable spot in any given room.
17 - Law of Bag / Box Occupancy
All bags and boxes in a given room must contain a cat within the earliest possible nanosecond.
18 - Law of Cat Embarrassment
A cat's irritation rises in direct proportion to her embarrassment times the amount of human laughter.
19 - Law of Milk Consumption
A cat will drink his weight in milk, squared, just to show you he can.
20 - Law of Furniture Replacement
A cats desire to scratch furniture is directly proportional to the cost of the furniture.
21 - Law of Cat Landing
A cat will always land in the softest place possible.
22 - Law of Fluid Displacement
A cat immersed in milk will displace her own volume, minus the amount of milk consumed.
23 - Law of Cat Disinterest
A cats interest level will vary in inverse proportion to the amount of effort a human expends in trying to interest him.
24 - Law of Pill Rejection
Any pill given to a cat has the potential energy to reach escape velocity.
25 - Law of Cat Composition
A cat is composed of Matter + Anti-Matter + It Doesn't Matter.
26 - Law of Selective Listening
Although a cat can hear a can of tuna being opened a mile away, she can't hear a simple command three feet away.
27 - Law of Equidistant Separation
All cats in a given room will locate at points equidistant from each other, and equidistant from the centre of the room.
28 - Law of Cat Invisibility
Cats think that if they can't see you, then you can't see them.
29 - Law of Space-Time
Continuum Given enough time, a cat will land in just about any space.
30 - Law of Concentration of Mass
A cat's mass increases in direct proportion to the comfort of the lap she occupies.
31 - Law of Cat Probability (Uncertainty Principle)
It is not possible to predict where a cat actually is, only the probability of where she "might" be.
32 - Law of Cat Obedience
As yet undiscovered.
What the hell happened to my country..?!?
I am not a state secret
Having just lost in court, a CIA kidnap victim asks why the U.S. won't admit its error.
By Khaled El-Masri, KHALED EL-MASRI, a German citizen born in Lebanon, was a car salesman before he was detained in December 2003.
March 3, 2007
ON NEW YEAR'S EVE in 2003, I was seized at the border of Serbia and Macedonia by Macedonian police who mistakenly believed that I was traveling on a false German passport. I was detained incommunicado for more than three weeks. Then I was handed over to the American Central Intelligence Agency and was stripped, severely beaten, shackled, dressed in a diaper, injected with drugs, chained to the floor of a plane and flown to Afghanistan, where I was imprisoned in a foul dungeon for more than four months.
Long after the American government realized that I was an entirely innocent man, I was blindfolded, put back on a plane, flown to Europe and left on a hilltop in Albania — without any explanation or apology for the nightmare that I had endured.
My story is well known. It has been described in literally hundreds of newspaper articles and television news programs — many of them relying on sources within the U.S. government. It has been the subject of numerous investigations and reports by intergovernmental bodies, including the European Parliament. Most recently, prosecutors in my own country of Germany are pursuing indictments against 13 CIA agents and contractors for their role in my kidnapping, abuse and detention. Although I never could have imagined it, and certainly never wished it, I have become the public face of the CIA's "extraordinary rendition" program.
Why, then, does the American government insist that my ordeal is a state secret? This is something beyond my comprehension. In December 2005, with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, I sued former CIA Director George Tenet along with other CIA agents and contractors for their roles in my kidnapping, mistreatment and arbitrary detention. Above all, what I want from the lawsuit is a public acknowledgment from the U.S. government that I was innocent, a mistaken victim of its rendition program, and an apology for what I was forced to endure. Without this vindication, it has been impossible for me to return to a normal life.
The U.S. government does not deny that I was wrongfully kidnapped. Instead, it has argued in court that my case must be dismissed because any litigation of my claims will expose state secrets and jeopardize American security, even though President Bush has told the world about the CIA's detention program, and even though my allegations have been corroborated by eyewitnesses and other evidence. To my amazement and dismay, last May, a federal district court judge agreed with the government and threw out my case. And then Friday, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision. It seems that the only place in the world where my case cannot be discussed is in a U.S. courtroom.
I did not bring this lawsuit to harm America. I brought the lawsuit because I want to know why America harmed me. I don't understand why the strongest nation on Earth believes that acknowledging a mistake will threaten its security. Isn't it more likely that showing the world that America cannot give justice to an innocent victim of its anti-terror policies will cause harm to America's image and security around the world?
IN NOVEMBER, I traveled to America for the first time to hear my lawyers argue my case before the appeals court in Richmond, Va. and to meet with members of Congress and their staff on Capitol Hill. (It's obvious that the U.S. government does not consider me a security threat, or I would not have been allowed to enter the country, much less be in the same room with federal judges and members of Congress.)
Although I did not understand all of the arguments made by the lawyers, I was impressed by the dignity of the proceedings and by the respect for the rule of law that I have always associated with America. I'm deeply disappointed to find that this same legal system denies me the chance to fully present my case.
If I were being treated fairly by the American legal system, perhaps we would not have reached the point where German prosecutors are bringing criminal charges against American citizens.
During my visit in November, many Americans offered me their personal apologies for the brutality that had been perpetrated against me in their name. I saw in their faces the true America, an America that is not held captive by fear of unknown enemies and that understands the strength and power of justice. That is the America that, I hope, one day will see me as a human being — not a state secret.
Having just lost in court, a CIA kidnap victim asks why the U.S. won't admit its error.
By Khaled El-Masri, KHALED EL-MASRI, a German citizen born in Lebanon, was a car salesman before he was detained in December 2003.
March 3, 2007
ON NEW YEAR'S EVE in 2003, I was seized at the border of Serbia and Macedonia by Macedonian police who mistakenly believed that I was traveling on a false German passport. I was detained incommunicado for more than three weeks. Then I was handed over to the American Central Intelligence Agency and was stripped, severely beaten, shackled, dressed in a diaper, injected with drugs, chained to the floor of a plane and flown to Afghanistan, where I was imprisoned in a foul dungeon for more than four months.
Long after the American government realized that I was an entirely innocent man, I was blindfolded, put back on a plane, flown to Europe and left on a hilltop in Albania — without any explanation or apology for the nightmare that I had endured.
My story is well known. It has been described in literally hundreds of newspaper articles and television news programs — many of them relying on sources within the U.S. government. It has been the subject of numerous investigations and reports by intergovernmental bodies, including the European Parliament. Most recently, prosecutors in my own country of Germany are pursuing indictments against 13 CIA agents and contractors for their role in my kidnapping, abuse and detention. Although I never could have imagined it, and certainly never wished it, I have become the public face of the CIA's "extraordinary rendition" program.
Why, then, does the American government insist that my ordeal is a state secret? This is something beyond my comprehension. In December 2005, with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, I sued former CIA Director George Tenet along with other CIA agents and contractors for their roles in my kidnapping, mistreatment and arbitrary detention. Above all, what I want from the lawsuit is a public acknowledgment from the U.S. government that I was innocent, a mistaken victim of its rendition program, and an apology for what I was forced to endure. Without this vindication, it has been impossible for me to return to a normal life.
The U.S. government does not deny that I was wrongfully kidnapped. Instead, it has argued in court that my case must be dismissed because any litigation of my claims will expose state secrets and jeopardize American security, even though President Bush has told the world about the CIA's detention program, and even though my allegations have been corroborated by eyewitnesses and other evidence. To my amazement and dismay, last May, a federal district court judge agreed with the government and threw out my case. And then Friday, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision. It seems that the only place in the world where my case cannot be discussed is in a U.S. courtroom.
I did not bring this lawsuit to harm America. I brought the lawsuit because I want to know why America harmed me. I don't understand why the strongest nation on Earth believes that acknowledging a mistake will threaten its security. Isn't it more likely that showing the world that America cannot give justice to an innocent victim of its anti-terror policies will cause harm to America's image and security around the world?
IN NOVEMBER, I traveled to America for the first time to hear my lawyers argue my case before the appeals court in Richmond, Va. and to meet with members of Congress and their staff on Capitol Hill. (It's obvious that the U.S. government does not consider me a security threat, or I would not have been allowed to enter the country, much less be in the same room with federal judges and members of Congress.)
Although I did not understand all of the arguments made by the lawyers, I was impressed by the dignity of the proceedings and by the respect for the rule of law that I have always associated with America. I'm deeply disappointed to find that this same legal system denies me the chance to fully present my case.
If I were being treated fairly by the American legal system, perhaps we would not have reached the point where German prosecutors are bringing criminal charges against American citizens.
During my visit in November, many Americans offered me their personal apologies for the brutality that had been perpetrated against me in their name. I saw in their faces the true America, an America that is not held captive by fear of unknown enemies and that understands the strength and power of justice. That is the America that, I hope, one day will see me as a human being — not a state secret.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)