|
To save on the amount of emails that consume MEGA bytes
of HD space, these pages are created for your convenience.
|
January 2003
<====
February 2003 <====
March
2003
01....02....03....04....05....06....07....08....09....10....11....12....13....14....15....
16....17....18....19....20....21....22....23....24....25....26....27....28....29....30....31
Since many reports herein are from other sources, a copyright would
be of little use in those cases.
But, all reports herein, reprints are permitted if proper credit is
given as to source - Rocky
View
with URL of this page or the homepage listed above.
|
|
|
|
[I have been dealing with exchange students for several years. Each year, I get to know and learn of people from other countries like Germany, Italy, Czechoslovakia, Brazil, Mexico, former USSR nations and many more. I have had many talks with them about perceptions of the world and the U.S. from people outside the U.S.. It has always been very revealing. Many of them have the typical liberal ideas, which school teaches, but their knowledge and understanding usually extend much farther than students and adults in the U.S.. This is not to say that every foreign student is well versed, but enough are to be refreshing.
I had a talk with a group some years ago and asked one who was from Georgia (not of Scarlet O’hare fame) about what is taught in their schools, particularly about the Lenin doctrine of them one day lulling us into a false sense of peace and then crushing us with clenched fists. The student confirmed these doctrines were still being taught in their schools.
One very important fact that WE need to understand is that WE (U.S. as a people – not every one) are very arrogant and think we are better than everyone else. To a point, we probably are, but when we thumb our noses or act the bully or such then we show our arrogance. One example is that many of us call ourselves “Americans”. The people from Mexico and Brazil and other countries in this half hemisphere are also “Americans”, but them call themselves by their country name, not their continent name. Only WE, in our arrogance, call ourselves by our continent name – “Americans”. We also through around our weight with other countries.
Now the reason for this introductory statement is that recently a number of exchange students went on a trip to Saint Louis and tour the city. While there, a couple of the German students had an experience that relates to the current Middle East and Iraq situation.
What follows is, without edit, in the words of one of the students, what happened. The German version is available by clicking here.]
An Iraqi’s view
By Moritz Graeper
After a long sightseeing tour of St. Louis with a group of friends we decide to go to the Union Station Mall to look for a nice place to eat. As we are walking through the old train station I discover a Pita Stand. Pita is a very common fast food dish in Germany, so my friend Martin, also from Germany, and I head towards the little place named “Pita King” in the hope we will get some food that we haven’t had in a long time. After standing in line for a few minutes, it is our turn and we order our meals. We also start talking to the very polite seeming man.
People that sell Pita in Germany are usually from Turkey. I am figuring the guy that served us our Pita would too, and I could start talking to him about other Turkish food. So as he is giving us our plates I ask him where he is from. He responds: “Ï am from Iraq.”
Iraq-war-Saddam Hussein-war-oil-USA-war-George Bush-war-bombs-Baghdad-war. How should I react? Should I express, that I feel sorry for him? No, sorry, for what. I know I do not want to cough out the stereotype-American OH, when hearing something about Iraq, because that would have made him think I have one of those wide spread pro war attitudes not looking beyond the pictures shown on CNN. No, that is not me. I realize that this is a wonderful opportunity to hear an opinion about the whole Iraq situation from an Iraqi point of view. I just solve my how-to-react problem with the simple question: “How long have you been staying in the United States?” Ned (pseudonym he has given himself) has been in America since 1993.
From here on, I am listening to one of the most interesting and exciting biographies I have ever heard in my life.
The 33 year old Ned is born in 1968 in Basrah, a big city in southern Iraq. Only one year later Saddam Hussein, “the enemy of the world” (George Bush), appears in policy of Iraq that is led by the military for 10 years by that point. In 1979 Saddam Hussein replaces Al-Bakr, who withdraws from the president’s position. The history of Iraq during the 1980s repeats itself: Iraq and Iran keep on conquering each other’s areas until both finally agree on an armistice in 1988. Two years later Iraq, still led by Saddam Hussein, invades their neighbor Kuwait. Neither diplomacy nor embargos against Iraq could change the situation, so the United States, under President Bush senior, and the UN send troops to Saudi Arabia. Air strikes and infantry push Iraq’s forces out of Kuwait. After this first Gulf war in 1991, several risings against President Saddam Hussein take place in Iraq They show the unhappiness with Hussein’s dictatorship. Ned is actively involved in these tries to get rid of the old system. The revolutionary troops take over 14 of 18 big cities until Saddam’s troops push them back. People involved in these rising are strongly followed from there on. Ned and his wife have to flee. They end up in a refugee camp in Saudi Arabia, where they stay for two years. His family is still in Basrah and the Iraqi police is after Ned’s dad because his son is a revolutionary.
On June 30, 1993 Ned and his wife come to the United States for the first time. They land in Chicago where they stay for half a year. On February 2, 1994 Ned, his wife and their two children move to St. Louis where they are still living today. Ned owns another restaurant as well as two retail stores in the Union station Mall. When customers ask him for his nationality he proudly tells them that he is from Iraq, even though he could call himself American after having received the American citizenship. On March 19 this year, Gulf war II begins, after the 48 hour ultimatum for Saddam and his sons to leave the country is over.
His family living in Basrah and especially his wife’s family living in Baghdad are in high danger now, and of course he lives with constant worries about them. The day of our conversation he had talked to both of them earlier on the phone and both have been fine by that point.
Ned himself is as well directly affected by the war, as the reaction of his customers range from expressing of support for him and his family to bad accusations.
One day a lady that had been a customer of his for a long time would come to have her lunch at the Pita King restaurant like she would have several times a week. This time one of Ned’s employees cooked her food as Ned was at one of his other businesses. The lady was still there when he returned. Before he could talk to her he had to make a phone call. Meanwhile the customer asked the employee for Ned’s nationality. He told her that Ned was from Iraq. As Ned gets off the phone, he just sees the lady throwing away her tray, accusing Ned to poison her food. After she calms down and realizes, that all this just happened to her because Ned is from Iraq she regrets it and apologizes for it. Today she comes again during her lunch breaks.
This is an example for “bad” reactions of customers, but there are also “good” ones as some people show their support for him.
When I ask him for his opinion about America going to war with Iraq he responds: “It is the right and only way to get rid of Saddam Hussein, which is the only way to help Iraq to become a free and successful country again.” But also he rhetorically asks me if I really thought that George Bush goes to Iraq to help the Iraqi people.
Today Ned is happy to have been able to see his family in Syria, a country in the north of Iraq, before the war started. On December 7, last year he and his family meet illegally because his family is not allowed to leave the country. Ned is not allowed to enter Iraq so they choose Syria.
In these hours Basrah is probably under heavy artillery of the US troops.
Lets hope Ned’s family is not going to be one of the already to many innocent
victims of this war.
New customers come and order their food. Ned and I say good bye and
exchange addresses.
My food is cold.
|
|
Have you noticed that during the past months and weeks, most people with whom you would have normally considered aligned and agreeing with you on viewpoints, now are at odds with you? I an a few other of my friends and associates with whom I am still in accord, have also notice the same division. Then there are friends and associates with whom I usually never agreed fully, and we are now in accord.
It is related to the aggression of the U.S. against a sovereign nation called Iraq. Do not get to mis-understanding me at the start, but I am all for self defense and protection. I also want a certain measure of due process PRIOR to action being taken against a bad guy. It is this certain measure of due process that affords me my protections of my liberties. The reasoning is that if we can take the expedient route for anyone, then it can be taken on me too. I also said a “sovereign nation”. Being that the U.S. and Iraq are members of the U.N. and nations can only become members of the U.N. if they are deemed to be sovereign, by existing members. Hence, Iraq is a sovereign nation, with alls rights, benefits, and privileges accorded a sovereign nation.
Now back to the division of friends and associates. There are those who are supporting this officially undeclared war based largely upon conjecture and speculation. They BELIEVE that certain claims about Iraq and/or Saddam are true and based upon that is the founding of their support for bloodshed. You will recall at the beginning of the “Gulf War” of the early 1990’s, that the public was lead to believe that baby’s were being killed, and this garnered much support for our going to war for oil in Kuwait and Iraq. After the war, it was revealed that the story about the baby’s was a lie and only used to garner support for the cause. Is there any reason to think tactics are any different today? I think not.
These people who are blindly supporting this war seem to have taken leave of their senses. It is rather like something was put in the water and all who have drank of this water have become useless, mind numb, idiots. They cite reasons and methods for justifying taking aggressive actions, but never apply them to the U.S.’s action. They make a leap from principle to action without any connecting tissue.
A way to test this is to substitute the names and places with other nations and peoples, and see if you would tolerate what has been and is happening. For example, if Iraq told the U.S. to do something or suffer invasion, what would you say to that? To help make this point, say the government of some other nation and its media got on a wagon about how the cops and courts in the U.S. regularly violate the Rights of the people, for even minor issues, and how the jails deny certain decent care of the captives, and how the cops us military forces to attack the citizenry and a host of other things, then they demanded we stop these things or they will take forcible action upon us to free our people from the tyranny of our government. What would be your reaction? You would first laugh at them, then challenge that they had not authority to demand anything of you.
What if the U.S. had weapons of mass destruction and threatened to use them on another sovereign nation? Would that other nation have a right, and be expected, to defend itself?
The point here is that everything the U.S. claims Iraq has done and/or might do, the U.S. also has done and is doing.
Hegemony is the name of this game and the U.S. has been playing it for most of last century and now all of this century. As reported by Reuters of London on September 11, 2001 --
Of course, these tactics being used with other nations is the same thing the government of the U.S. and its member states have been doing more and more to its own people for decades. So, it is little wonder the masses see nothing wrong with the tactics, as they have been exposed to, and living with, them for a while now.Iraqi state television on Tuesday hailed the attacks on the Pentagon (news - web sites) and the World Trade Center as the ''operation of the century'' which the United States deserved because of its ``crimes against humanity.''``The American cowboy is reaping the fruits of his crimes against humanity. It is a black day in the history of America, which is tasting the bitter defeat of its crimes and disregard for peoples' will to lead a free, decent life,'' it said in a commentary monitored by the British Broadcasting Corporation.
George Orwell is proven more prophetic every day.
|
|
I was barely sitting down in a public restroom when I heard a voice from the other stall saying: "Hi, how are you?"
I'm not the type to start a conversation in the men's restrooms at a rest stop. I don't know what got into me, but I answered, somewhat embarrassedly: "Doin' just fine!"
And the other guy says: "So what are you up too?"
What kind of question is that? At that point, I'm thinking this is too bizarre, so I say: "Uhhh I'm like you, just traveling east!"
At this point I am just trying to get out as fast as I can before I hear another question, but here he asks again, "Can I come over to your place after while?"
OK, this question is just wacky but I figured I could just be polite and end the conversation.
I tell him, "Well, I have company over so today is a bad day for me!"
Then I hear the guy say nervously...
"LISTEN, I'll have to call you back. There's an idiot in the other stall
who keeps answering all my questions!"
|
|
[This is an excerpt from the interview. The whole intereview can be read at http://www.creatrixstudio.com/artpalast.html ]
On April 19, 2002, I had the opportunity to speak to Greg Palast about the state of investigative reporting and journalistic freedom.
Adams: Why do you think Americans believe we have a free press, when so much information is suppressed?
Palast: If you haven’t seen it, you don’t know it. A good thing about Americans is that we have to be lied to. As my friend Daniel Elsburg says, they have to fill us up with brain-dead nonsense. They have to give us hypnotic garbage on television, because if they told us the truth, Americans would get very upset. That’s the good thing about Americans. We’re told that this is the land of the free and that we have a free press--not having any other information to go on, we can’t say that this is not true.
Obviously, when Michael Moore2 comes out with a book, based on my reporting, and then I come up with a book with a dinky-winky publisher in Britain, and I’m on The New York Times Best Seller list—obviously people are hungry.
Adams: Do you think countries elsewhere in the world have a free press?
Palast: No, I haven’t found a country yet with a free press. The closest I’ve come to is Sweden or Holland. What’s wonderful about the US is that we have a First Amendment. No other country has a First Amendment—a law which says that the government can’t tell you what to print or what not to print.
That means, for example, that we have no libel law restrictions, which are very, very serious, around the world. In Britain, I’m facing restrictions under the Official Secret’s Act. I’ve been in the situation where I can’t print something because the government says it violates their secrets.
I was stopped, for example, from reporting about the Bush family’s involvement in gold-mining properties in Tanzania. It’s a horror story. You don’t have the same rights to report in Britain that you have in the US; on the other hand, you can’t report on certain things in the U.S. because of the powers that be and the commercial restrictions.
So forget the Pentagon Papers and the Watergate stories, from decades
ago, they would not print those things today. There is no chance in the
world that The Times would publish the Pentagon Papers today.
|
|
|
|
By James Roger Brown - thesociologist@aol.com
[Author’s Note: This is the first problem I have evaluated in twenty-five years that is rooted in pure malice and has no foreseeable positive outcome. The human beings whose acts will determine the final outcomes are currently motivated by greed, power, legacy, hate and revenge.]
“Israel is involved in this game without quite knowing what it is doing there, a boy in a game of world-league bullies. It has nothing to gain, it can only lose.” (65. Avnery, Uri. "One Man Against the World.")
The current inhabitants of Israel, if they continue allowing themselves to be deceived that Israel has any future management outcome different from that of Enron, face a choice of ugly deaths. The possible outcomes range from being abandoned to their fate by the collapse of Israel (later to be exploited in death by their alleged fellow Ashkenazi Jews and the descendants of the European Elite who engineered their horrific demise) to being consumed in a Massada-style nuclear suicide pact that takes much of Europe with it. We have the precedents of Zionists condemning their inconvenient non-Zionist fellow Jews to death at Nazi and later Russian hands because their deaths were of more long-range benefit to the Zionist cause than live contrary, contradictory, or opposing Jews.
the following is this report in PDF and DOC formats
http://rockyuno.home.att.net/Browser/news_comments_current/200303/suicide-nation_the_inevitable_demise_of_israel.pdf
http://rockyuno.home.att.net/Browser/news_comments_current/200303/suicide-nation_the_inevitable_demise_of_israel.doc
|
|
"After 'shock and awe' - and the expenditure of billions of dollars of cruise missiles and bombs (each cruise missile costs $500,000 to $1 million) - the net result is that we have bombed many buildings that were evacuated weeks ago. Yesterday a friend of mine said, 'My god, the missiles are more valuable than the buildings they are destroying.' "
I am noticing how Bush was previously claiming that we would attack Iraq and be swift and decisive (or similar words). Not we are proceding "slowly but surely" (a quote). I guess the method can be changed without loosing credibility.
Nearly a week into the war, the U.S. "shock and awe" [swift] air campaign against the pillars of Saddam Hussein power has yet to achieve its broader aim: an early capitulation by the Iraqi regime that would avert all-out war for control of Baghdad. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030325/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_shock_and_awe&cid=540&ncid=1480)
"We're slowly but surely taking control of that country, so that we free the people of Iraq and eventually clear that country of weapons of mass destruction," Bush said. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030324/ts_nm/iraq_usa_dc_76)
The president sought to brace the country
for what could be drawn-out military action. "This is just the beginning
of a tough fight," he said. "We're slowly but surely achieving our objective.
We're just in the beginning phases. We're executing a plan which will make
it easier to achieve our objective and at the same time spare innocent
life." (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030324/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_bush_15)
|
|
|
|
A patriot was crossing a road one day when a frog called out to him and said, "If you kiss me, I'll turn into a beautiful princess." He bent over, picked up the frog and put it in his pocket.
The frog spoke up again and said, "If you kiss me and turn me back into a beautiful princess, I will stay with you for one week." The patriot guy took the frog out of his pocket, smiled at it and returned it to the pocket.
The frog then cried out, "If you kiss me and turn me back into a beautiful princess, I'll stay with you for a month and do ANYTHING you want." Again the patriot guy took the frog out, smiled at it and put it back into his pocket.
Finally the frog asked, "What is the matter? I've told you I'm a beautiful princess, that I'll stay with you for a month and do anything you want. Why won't you kiss me? How about a year?"
The patriot said, "Look, I 'm an American Citizen. My country is in shambles. We have illegal aliens, drug runners, criminals, murderers, and even terrorists coming across our border to the south. We have Pakistani and other illegal aliens trying to escape across our border to the north. We have idiots in congress wanting to get rid of even more of our constitutional rights because an even bigger idiot wants to do again what he did with Patriot Act I. And to top it off he wants to start World War III. I don't have time for a girlfriend, but a talking frog - now that's cool."
LIBERTY IN OUR LIFETIME
www.freestateproject.org
|
|
Brooks Brothers Suit: $680
Political Career & becoming Senate Majority Leader: $15million
Using wrong hand during recitation of Pledge of Allegiance: Priceless
(notice the 'birds of a feather' in background)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.lastdaysprophecies.com/
by Sherry Shriner
This photo (see full image below) was taken from my backyard between 10:00AM and 10:15AM 3/4/2003 with a Kodak Digital Camera. The circles appear to be in the direction of Nashville TN which is about 32 miles south west of my home in Gallatin, TN.
I sent them to a local televison station meteorologist. He said he had 2 theories. He said it could have been what the weather people call a thermal inversion, Which means warm air rising in a circular motion much like a tornado only in reverse.
He also said the AMS (American Meteorological Society) mentioned in the AMS report, there are experiments with rain prevention being used by the U S Air Force that have been known to cause this. He featured it on last night's weather report on the local Fox News channel.
--Wayne Carter
|
|
|
|
WHY THINGS GO WRONG
aka THE PETER PRINCIPLE
and
RED QUEEN PRINCIPLE
WHY THINGS GO WRONG --- THE PETER PRINCIPLE
by Laurence J. Peter. William Morrow, 1985
The Peter Principle basically asserts that people within an organization tend to get promoted to their level of incompetence. The theory was first given public awareness in a book “The Peter Principle: Why Things Always Go Wrong” by Laurence J. Peter, in collaboration with Raymond Hall, an author and journalist, published in 1969. It was his observation that people eventually end up in the wrong job for the right reason, and create havoc in the workplace.
The Peter Principle works rather like this –
New employees (or subordinate type people) generally begin with low level positions, until they demonstrate competence at their level, they then are promoted to higher levels or positions in the organization. Such promotions are often categorized as climbing up the corporate ladder (a hierarchical structure) and continues until the subordinate attains a level where he is no longer competent.
It does not matter if the subordinate learns (stumbles upon) that a lower level position would be better for him and even the organization, he is restrained, by stigma, from seeking a demotion and the organization often has no procedure for demotion, while they have procedures for terminations. This has the effect of most high-level positions being filled by incompetent people who were good at their last level, which is different than their last (now) job. As Mr. Morrow says, “This Is Why Things Go Wrong”.
The principle is universal and does not affect only, and victimize only, ignorant and low educated people or bureaucrats or politicians. People molded by education, licensing, physics and environment are also witting, and unwitting, participants. Training, and preparation, even guidance can reduce becoming incompetent in a new position.
Here are some references from the book --
"It's harder to get the job than to keep it!"
Employees may be selected on a basis of "competence," for their entry-level jobs. But as they move up they tend to become arranged just as distribution theory ("bell-shaped curve") would predict. The majority are in the "moderately competent" group with the "competent" and the "incompetent' comprising the minorities. And there are two rare types of employees who do not fit into this structure, the "supercompetent" and the "superincompetent."
A "supercompetent" is someone who sees a better way of doing things! (p72)
Supercompetence frequently leads to dismissal because it disrupts the organization's administrative hierarchy. That is why it is more objectionable than impotence within an establishment.
Ordinary incompetence is sometimes a bar to promotion, but is not a cause for firing!(p73)
Although some human error is inevitable, it is essential in this age that it be kept at a minimum and that the operation of the "Peter Principle" be controlled so that individuals are not escalated to that rung of the hierarchy where their incompetence will make its greatest contribution toward the malfunction of the organization in which they are involved.
"De-Bureaucratization"
Unfortunately, when a "bureaucrat" becomes a victim of the Peter Principle, he or she ceases to do anything useful but is still able to turn out meaningless forms and procedures that ensnare subordinates in a tangle of paperwork, making their lives more difficult. It is heartening to hear of any successful attempt to curtail this trend.
"The myth of management "
Management is the act of exerting influence on individuals, thereby wielding control over a business or other organization. Good management does this in such a way that a positive outcome is achieved. Bad management usually achieves a negative outcome for an organization.
In a hierarchy, the potential for a "competent" subordinate to manage an "incompetent" superior is greater than for an incompetent "superior" to manage a "competent" subordinate!
A "competent manager" budgets, staffs, organizes, supervises, and communicates with other persons, departments or organizations. Unfortunately, an "incompetent manager" can do all of these things but still FAIL to provide the VISION required to ensure success.
Management is not a substitute for leadership!
You can't "manage" employees into responsibility or competence, but you can "lead" them!
A leader has the ability to see further than the rest, to set new directions, and to inspire followers to eager involvement in fresh courses of action.
There is a significant difference between being "in charge" and being
"a leader!" Leaders have LEADERSHIP ABILITY --- the higher they rise,
the further they see, the more they know, the more original they become!
RED QUEEN PRINCIPLE
This principle is less related to organizations and more to something akin to evolution.
The Red Queen Principle the product of evolutionary biologist Leigh van Valen, a professor at the University of Chicago, in 1973. He got the idea from a quote in Lewis Carroll's “Through the Looking Glass” also known as “Alice in Wonderland”. Here the Red Queen is talking with Alice and says "in this place, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place."
Leigh van Valen premised that "For an evolutionary system, continuing development is needed just in order to maintain its fitness relative to the systems it is co-evolving with."
Professor Francis Heylighen, of the Free University of Brussels, tells how an improvement in one species will lead to a competitive advantage, in one form or another, and allow that species to capture a larger share of the resources. This will, in turn, lead to a smaller share of the resources for another species, and thus a fitness decrease. The only way the other species involved in the competition can survive is by learning how to increase its fitness, so that it can regain its share of the resources.
Heylighen explains that a rabbit, having evolved to run faster, gained
a competitive defensive advantage over its predator the fox. The
fox, therefore, must compensate for its seemingly deficient fitness by
increasing its offense, which includes learning how to run faster, now
obtaining a competitive edge.
|
|
[Just like with legislation, you can pass all the rules you want, but just because you say something is so, does not make it so. -- Rocky]
John Smith was the only Protestant to move into a large Catholic neighborhood.
On the first Friday of Lent, John was outside grilling a big juicy steak on his grill. Meanwhile, all of his neighbors were eating cold tuna fish for supper. This went on each Friday of Lent.
On the last Friday of Lent, the neighborhood men got together and decided that something had to be done about John, he was tempting them to eat meat each Friday of Lent, and, they couldn't take it anymore. They decided to try and convert John to be a Catholic. They went over and talked to him and were so happy that he decided to join all of his neighbors and become a Catholic.
They took him to Church, and the Priest sprinkled some water over him, and said, "You were born a Baptist, you were raised a Baptist, and now you are a Catholic."
The men were so relieved, now their biggest Lenten temptation was resolved.
The next year's Lenten season rolled around. The first Friday of Lent came and just at supper time, when the neighborhood was setting down to their cold tuna fish dinner, came the wafting smell of steak cooking on a grill.
The neighborhood men could not believe their noses! WHAT WAS GOING ON?
They called each other up and decided to meet over in John's yard to see if he had forgotten it was the first Friday of Lent. The group arrived just in time to see John standing over his grill with a small pitcher of water.
He was sprinkling some water over his steak on the grill, saying, "You
were born a cow, you were raised a cow, and now you are a fish."
|
|
|
|
Ingredients:
8 cups of all-purpose flour
1/3 cup of baking powder
2 teaspoons of salt
8 teaspoons of sugar (optional)
Combine and mix ingredients well.
Cut in 1 cup of shortening, using a pastry blender, until ingredients resemble coarse meal.
Store the dough in a self-sealing container until ready to use. Note: Use this baking mix as you would a store-bought brand dough.
Making biscuits: Use 1 cup of mix and add 1/3 cup of milk. Bake biscuits in a 450 degree oven for 12 – 15 minutes.
Making pancakes: Use 1 cup of baking mix and add liquid to make the consistency of batter you like.
Modification from Mike (and I agree with it)
The above recipe is a great way to have an extended gut and general
sickness. Why not try Real Whole Wheat flour and use a non aluminum
baking powder (some powders contain aluminum) and honey as sweetener!!!
|
|
|
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20030226-73777264.htm
February 26, 2003
By Audrey Hudson THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Contributed by Larry
Flight information from all airline passengers, including financial data, can be collected and analyzed under a little-seen regulation proposed by the Transportation Security Administration to track potential terrorists.
The federal government wants to keep information for 50 years on passengers it believes pose threats to national security, while information on other passengers would be stored in a database for the duration of their travel and eliminated after their return trips.
Privacy advocates criticize the TSA proposal as a national database open to abuse, similar to concerns about the Pentagon's Total Information Awareness project, which Congress has put on indefinite hold.
"This is something that ought to be particularly worrisome to the public" said former Rep. Bob Barr, Georgia Republican. "The public focus has been on TIA, while the TSA has been quietly putting together a program that is as potentially just as intrusive."
Mr. Barr, now director of the 21st Chair for Privacy and Freedom at the American Conservative Union, says the proposed changes are outlawed by the very Privacy Act that the department wants to amend.
Chet Lunner, Transportation Department spokesman, said the system will "be deployed much more narrower than the language will lead people to believe at the outset."
The proposal to amend the Privacy Act of 1974 says passengers covered in the system would include those "traveling to, from, or within the U.S. by passenger air transportation; individuals who are deemed to pose a possible risk to transportation or national security, a possible risk of air piracy or terrorism, or a potential threat to airline or passenger safety aviation, civil aviation, or national security."
The information would include "passenger name records and associated data, reservation and manifest information of passenger carriers and, in the case of individuals who are deemed to pose a possible risk to transportation security, record categories may include: risk assessment reports; financial and transactional data; public source information; proprietary data; and information from law enforcement and intelligence sources," the proposal said.
Mr. Lunner calls the proposal "boilerplate language" required to amend the Privacy Act. The "initial proposal," he said, is misleading because the "program will be of much narrower scope than the language might lead people to believe."
"That language is supposed to represent the widest possible use of a system," Mr. Lunner said.
Mr. Barr called the department's defense "nonsense."
"Federal agencies propose widespread regulations because they want widespread regulations. If they want narrowly focused regulations, they are required to submit for public comment a narrowly tailored regulation," Mr. Barr said.
The proposal was printed in the Jan. 15 Federal Register, and the comment period expired Monday. If no comments were received, the listing said, the rules would become effective immediately.
Mr. Lunner said many comments were received and "we will take the comments under consideration and we will republish."
Adm. James M. Loy, TSA undersecretary, will discuss this and other agency initiatives during a press conference today.
The regulations were brought to light yesterday by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which used the Freedom of Information Act to request more information on the TSA proposal but received no response.
Chris Hoofnagle, deputy counsel for the information center, said the TSA could provide no information on how a passenger would be determined a "possible risk to transportation or national security."
The proposal sets forth a procedure for travelers to obtain information gathered in the database, but does not say how anyone would learn whether they have been categorized as a threat to security.
Those wishing to contest the database information must "clearly and concisely state what information is being contested, the reason for contesting it, and the proposed amendment to the record."
"The request must also contain the requester's full name, current address, and date and place of birth."
The information collected in the system would be safeguarded with limited access and an auditing of all who retrieve the information, the proposal said.
However, nearly a dozen sections of the regulation detail who has "routine
use" of the information, including any federal, state, territorial, tribal,
local, international or foreign agency with law-enforcement duties or any
of a slew of other purposes.
|
|
WORLD'S EASIEST QUIZ
(Passing requires ONLY 4 correct answers)
1) How long did the Hundred Years War last?
2) Which country makes Panama hats?
3) >From which animal do we get catgut?
4) In which month do Russians celebrate the October Revolution?
5) What is a camel's hair brush made of?
6) The Canary Islands in the Pacific are named after what animal?
7) What was King George VI's first name?
8) What color is a purple finch?
9) Where are Chinese gooseberries from?
10) What is the color of the black box in a commercial airplane?
All done? Check your answers at the end of this page
|
|
When a civilisation has lost the stomach to fight for its existence, and views self-defence as aggression, it has signed its own death warrant by Melanie Phillips
THIS IS a critical week for the future of Iraq and the alliance between Britain and America. Today, the UN's chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, reports to the UN Security Council on his progress.
Tomorrow, President George W. Bush makes his seminal State of the Union address, and on Friday Tony Blair is to meet him at Camp David for a council of war.
It is also a fateful week for the Prime Minister. For he now realises that he has still failed to persuade the British public of the case for war.
AccordIng to a YouGov poll at the weekend, just over a quarter of respondents said they were convinced that Saddam Husein was sufficiently dangerous to justIfy military action. And only one in five would support war without UN backing.
Meanwhile, Mr Blair's self-appointed role as the bridge between the U.S. and Europe has been holed below the waterline by the declared hostility to war of France and Germany.
President Bush, aware that opposition is also growing among the American public, is sayIng the inspectors should be given more time. But the world has already waited 11 years for proof that Saddam has destroyed his capacity to build weapons of mass destruction.
Menace Mr Blair says that in the absence of a second UN resolution, war would be justified if the inspectors said Iraq had obstructed them. But Mr BIix says his report will be 'a mixed bag-in other words, it will provide ammunition for both liberators and appeasers.
In this tumult, the Prime Minister has been criticised for not taking the case for war effectively enough. In fact, the case has been made, but the public will not accept it. Instead, myths have achieved the status o killer arguments.
Myth number one is that no smoking gun' has been found. But the West doesn't have to produce a smoking gun. It is Saddam who is requIred to produce the evidence that he has complied with the terms of the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire.
This made it a condition that a Saddam destroy his weapons of mass destruction and prove that he had done so, because he as rightly considered a huge menace to the world.
Repeatedly declaring his intention to become the leader of the Arabs, he had already invaded and attacked a number of countries, posing a direct threat to western interests. If he became armed with weapons of mass destruction, this threat would then paralyse the West.
That danger has never gone away. Much U.S. and British IntellIgence obviously cannot be revealed, as it would compromise vital sources. But the burden of proof lies not with the West but with Saddam to prove he has got rid of the weapons we know he had.
Yet he has failed to produce a single document on the fate of his known stockpile of deadly VX nerve gas, or the anthrax or botulism he had amassed. He has failed to explain his known attempt to procure enriched uranium from abroad, or his manufacture of specific fuel for ballIstic missIles that he claims not to possess.
In recent weeks, the inspectors have discovered chemical warheads-showIng Saddam lied when he said he had no weapons of mass destruction - along with 3,000 documents revealing his continuing efforts to build nuclear weapons.
We know he has issued his troops with chemical protection suits-against the effects of the weapons he says he hasn't got. Similarly, we know from U.S. IntellIgence that last autumn he ordered more than 1.2 mIllion doses of the standard antidote for soldiers likely to be exposed to poison gas, and 25 metric tons of powder which makes chemical dust weapons.
We know he has threatened his scientists with death if they talk, and that he has hidden weapons in friendly countries such as Syria, Yet all this evidence Is simply dismissed by the BritIsh public.
The second myth Is that he doesn't have the missiles to threaten us, But missiles are not necessary. As we have seen from the ricin plot, terrorists can easily be supplied with chemical or biological agents, and Saddam is a godfather of terrorism.
The third myth is that President Bush's real agenda is to seize the Iraqi oilfields. In view of the known threat posed by Saddam, this theory is truly bizarre. Yes, oil is vital for the West; hence the Gulf War when Saddam invaded Kuwait. It Is Saddam who wages wars for oil.
In America, by contrast, the oil interest has meant until now that America turned a blind eye to tyranny as long as the oil kept flowing. Indeed, the oil interest stIll paralyses any action against Saudi Arabia, a fount of world terror.
These myths are simply irrational. The key fact remains that Saddam has refused prove he is no longer a menace to our lives and our interests. So why do three-quarters of us no longer believe this threat?
There are several explanations. The first is the passage of time since the Gulf War, creating the belief that only a fresh invasion (or the dIscovery "of a nuclear missile with 'London'stencilled on its side) can justify action.
The second is the widespread \ distrust of politicians as unprincipled opportunists. But Ii that judgement is true here, why should President Bush be risking his political future like this? Why should Mr Blair be setting himself so dangerously against his party, his country and his important friends in Europe?
Helpless The third is the failure to understand the reality of Islamist fascism.
Many believe this is merely America's war, and Britain is needlessly getting involved. But look at what is now being unearthed by police in Italy and Spain-terrorist cells targeting cities all over appeasement-minded Europe.
For the Islamist tiger-being ridden by secular Saddam for aIl he is worth-is roaring its death threats to 'Crusaders and Zealots', or Christians and Jews in other words, to western civilisation in general.
This is constantly illustrated by the repeated Islamist attacks on Christian communities around the world. Yet few in Britain are aware of this persecution because it is ignored, not only by the media but astonishing]y by the churches.
Instead, British clerics parrot the fashionable anti-Americanism which invariably blames the West for the misdeeds of the Third World, which it casts as the helpless victims of west-imperialism.
At a deeper level still, there is now a vast difference between American and European attitudes. The U.S. believes in itself strongly as a nation, Is deeply religious and is prepared to fight to defend its values. Europe, by contrast, is post-nationalist, post-Christian (including many bishops) and pacifist.
But in a battle between Islamists who are prepared to kill and to die for their beliefs, and European liberals who have come to believe that all war is "bad and must be replaced by supranational talking-shops and peace at any price, there is no contest.
When a civilisation no longer has the stomach to fight for its existence,
and views its own self-defence as unwarranted aggression, it has signed
Its own death warrant. m.phillips@dailymail.co.uk
|
Dewey, Cheetum & Howe |
contributed by D
Finding regulations governing state-federal agreements for administration of qualified state income taxes enabled me to put components of IRS standing, venue & subject matter jurisdiction together. A reasonably concise treatment follows. I don't care to re-invent the wheel so I incorporated two paragraphs constructed by Larry Becraft for Bill Benson of Illinois: Congress did not legislatively create the Internal Revenue Service so IRS cannot legitimately function as an agency of Government of the United States. Becraft constructed the two paragraphs following the 26 CFR § 601.101(a) cite. The best evidence is that IRS is successor of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Puerto Rico. In that is the case, IRS may legitimately function as "delegate" of the Secretary of the Treasury in insular possessions, per 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(12)(B). So what authority does IRS have in States of the Union? The best evidence suggests that IRS is responsible for providing support services through the Treasury Financial Management Service, which appears to serve simultaneously as delegate of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Fisical Assistant Secretary, Secretary of the Treasury. The Director of OMB has primary responsibility for settling accounts of the United States, whether owed to or by. The Secretary of the Treasury is responsible for administering internal revenue laws of the United States, as well as customs laws. In the context of Chapter 24 of the Internal Revenue Code (withholding from wages at the source), which applies exclusively to government agencies and personnel, the Internal Revenue Service provides sundry services once FMS has certified the agency responsible for withholding from wages. I've credited Becraft for his two paragraphs as I pretty well left them as they were written, but a multitude of other people deserve credit for their respective efforts, too. I don't have time to make anything resembling a complete credit list so won't even try. Thanks to IRS, I began independent study of law in March 1993. If you were to multiply the ten years I've dedicated to the effort by a hundred, or maybe a thousand, you would have some idea of the amount of time and energy invested in the following few pages. Dan Meador
IRS Standing, Venue & Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Two uncontested facts necessarily define, prescribe and limit authority of the Internal Revenue Service within States of the Union: (1) The Secretary of the Treasury has never established internal revenue districts of the United States in States of the Union in compliance with requirements of 26 U.S.C. § 7621 and Executive Order #10289 (published following 3 U.S.C. § 301) and (2) the Internal Revenue Service is not the delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury, as the term “delegate” is defined at 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(12)(A).
Where internal revenue laws of the United States are concerned, the Internal Revenue Service functions as delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury for administration of Chapters 1, 2 & 21 of the Internal Revenue Code within insular possessions of the United States (26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(12)(B)), and venue is strictly limited to internal revenue districts within insular possessions, per 26 CFR § 601.101(a):
§ 601.101 Introduction.
(a) General. The Internal Revenue Service is a bureau of
the Department of the Treasury under the immediate direction of the Commissioner
of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner has general superintendence
of the assessment and collection of all taxes imposed by any law providing
internal revenue. The Internal Revenue Service is the agency by which
these functions are performed. Within an internal revenue district the
internal revenue laws are administered by a district director of internal
revenue. The Director, Foreign Operations District, administers the
internal revenue laws applicable to taxpayers residing or doing business
abroad, foreign taxpayers deriving income from sources within the United
States, and taxpayers who are required to withhold tax on certain payments
to nonresident aliens and foreign corporations, provided the books and
records of those taxpayers are located outside the United States.
For purposes of these procedural rules any reference to a district director
or a district office includes the Director, Foreign Operations District,
or the District Office, Foreign Operations District, if appropriate.
Generally, the procedural rules of the Service are based on the Internal
Revenue Code of 1939 and the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, and the procedural
rules in this part apply to the taxes imposed by both Codes except to the
extent specifically stated or where the procedure under one Code is incompatible
with the procedure under the other Code. Reference to sections
of the Code are references to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, unless
otherwise expressly indicated. [Underscore added for emphasis]
Congress did not enact legislation that created the Internal Revenue Service or its predecessor, the Bureau of Internal Revenue, as required by Article I § 8, clause 18 of the U.S. Constitution. For confirmation that Congress did not legislatively create the Internal Revenue Service, see 39 Fed. Reg. 11572, 1974-1 Cum. Bul. 440, and Internal Revenue Manual 1100 editions through the early 1990’s.
Since Congress did not legislatively create the Internal Revenue Service, the entity does not have standing as an agency of Government of the United States within the constitutional framework. See United States v. Germaine, 99 U.S. 508 (1879); Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 441, 6 S.Ct. 1121 (1886) ("there can be no officer, either de jure or de facto, if there be no office to fill"); United States v. Mouat, 124 U.S. 303, 8 S.Ct. 505 (1888); United States v. Smith, 124 U.S. 525, 8 S.Ct. 595 (1888); Glavey v. United States, 182 U.S. 595, 607, 21 S.Ct. 891 (1901) ("The law creates the office, prescribes its duties"); Cochnower v. United States, 248 U.S. 405, 407, 39 S.Ct. 137 (1919) ("Primarily we may say that the creation of offices and the assignment of their compensation is a legislative function... And we think the delegation of such function and the extent of its delegation must have clear expression or implication"); Burnap v. United States, 252 U.S. 512, 516, 40 S.Ct. 374, 376 (1920); Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, 269 U.S. 514, 46 S.Ct. 172, 173 (1926); N.L.R.B. v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Louisville, 350 U.S. 264, 269, 76 S.Ct. 383 (1956) ("'Officers' normally means those who hold defined offices. It does not mean the boys in the back room or other agencies of invisible government, whether in politics or in the trade-union movement"); Crowley v. Southern Ry. Co., 139 F. 851, 853 (5th Cir. 1905); Adams v. Murphy, 165 F. 304 (8th Cir. 1908); Scully v. United States, 193 F. 185, 187 (D.Nev. 1910) ("There can be no offices of the United States, strictly speaking, except those which are created by the Constitution itself, or by an act of Congress"); Commissioner v. Harlan, 80 F.2d 660, 662 (9th Cir. 1935); Varden v. Ridings, 20 F.Supp. 495 (E.D.Ky. 1937); Annoni v. Blas Nadal's Heirs, 94 F.2d 513, 515 (1st Cir. 1938); and Pope v. Commissioner, 138 F.2d 1006, 1009 (6th Cir. 1943).
Internal Revenue Service lawful capacity notwithstanding, the entity has colorable jurisdiction by way of accommodation within States of the Union, operating in ancillary and support capacities for the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (P.L. #104-316; 31 U.S.C. § 3702) and the Fiscal Assistant Secretary of the Department of Treasury (31 CFR § 215.2(l)), solely within the scope of standard state-federal administrative agreements authorized by 31 CFR Part 215 and 26 CFR §§ 301.6361-1 through 301.6365-2, the agreements administered in the context of regulations in 26 CFR Part 31. Underlying authorities colorably include the Buck Act (4 U.S.C. §§ 104-110), 5 U.S.C. § 5517 (federal administration of qualified state income taxes) and Executive Order #11997 (published following 5 U.S.C. § 5520). The scope of current standard agreements is prescribed by 31 CFR § 215.1:
§ 215.1 Scope of part.
This part relates to agreements between the Secretary of the
Treasury and States (including the District of Columbia), cities or counties
for withholding of State, city or county income or employment taxes from
the compensation of civilian Federal employees, and for the withholding
of State income taxes from the compensation of members of the Armed Forces.
Subpart A contains general information and definitions. Subpart B prescribes
the procedures to be followed in entering into an agreement for the withholding
of State, city or county income or employment taxes. Subpart C is the Standard
Agreement which the Secretary will enter into with any State, city or county
which qualifies to have tax withheld. Requests for deviations from this
Standard Agreement will be agreed to by the Secretary only if the State,
city or county's unique circumstances require it. [Underscore added for
emphasis]
Administration of current standard agreements corresponds with particulars of former agreements authorized by Internal Revenue Code sections repealed in 1990, as particularized by 26 CFR § 301.6361-1(a):
§ 301.6361-1 Collection and administration of qualified taxes.
(a) In general. In the case of any State which has in effect
a State agreement (as defined in paragraph (a) of § 301.6361-4), the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall collect and administer each qualified
tax (as defined in paragraph (b) of § 301.6361-4) of such State. No
fee or other charge shall be imposed upon any State for the collection
or administration of any qualified tax of such State or any other State.
In any such case of collection and administration of qualified taxes, the
provisions of subtitle F (relating to procedure and administration), subtitle
G (relating to the Joint Committee on Taxation), and chapter 24 (relating
to the collection of income tax at source on wages), and the provisions
of regulations thereunder, insofar as such provisions relate to the collection
and administration of the taxes imposed on the income of individuals by
chapter 1 (and the civil and criminal sanctions provided by subtitle F,
or by title 18 of the United States Code (relating to crimes and criminal
procedure), with respect to such collection and administration) shall apply
to the collection and administration of qualified taxes as if such taxes
were imposed by chapter 1, except to the extent that the application of
such provisions (and sanctions) are modified by regulations issued under
subchapter E (as defined in paragraph (d) of § 301.6361-4). Any extension
of time which is granted for the making of a payment, or for the filing
of any return, which relates to any Federal tax imposed by subtitle A (or
by subtitle C with respect to filing a return) shall constitute automatically
an extension of the same amount of time for the making of the corresponding
payment or for the filing of the corresponding return relating to any qualified
tax. [Underscore added for emphasis]
Those subject to colorable IRS authority within the context of standard agreements are identified by definition at 31 CFR § 215.2(h):
(h)(1) "Employees" for the purpose of State income tax withholding, means all employees of an agency, other than members of the armed forces. For city and county income or employment tax withholding, it means:
(i) Employees of an agency;
(ii) Members of the National Guard, participating in exercises or performing duty under 32 U.S.C. 502; or
(iii) Members of the Ready Reserve, participating in scheduled drills or training periods, or serving on active duty for training under 10 U.S.C. 270(a).
The term does not include retired personnel, pensioners, annuitants, or similar beneficiaries of the Federal Government, who are not performing active civilian service or persons receiving remuneration for services on a contract-fee basis.
(2) "Employees" for purposes of District of Columbia income tax withholding, means employees as defined in 47 District of Columbia Code 1551c(z).
(i) "Members of the Armed Forces" means all individuals in active duty status (as defined in 10 U.S.C. 101(22)) in regular and reserve components of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, including members of the National Guard while participating in exercises or performing duty under 32 U.S.C. 502, and members of the Ready Reserve while participating in scheduled drills or training periods or serving on active duty for training under 10 U.S.C. 270(a).
Also see definitions of “employee” and “employer” at 26 U.S.C. §§ 3401(c) & (d). Chapters 24 of the Internal Revenue Code authorizes government agencies to withhold resident and nonresident income taxes from wages of government personnel at the source; the chapter does not extend to private enterprise in States of the Union or elsewhere. Further, the Treasury Financial Management Service must authorize withholding authority by issuing the Form 8655 Reporting Agent Authorization certificate to an agency head then the reporting agency must file the completed certificate with the IRS computer center at Andover, per § 3.0.258.4 (11/21/97) of the Internal Revenue Manual (See January 1999 edition of the Internal Revenue Manual on CD):
3.0.258.4 (11/21/97) – Review of Forms 8655
The Financial Management Service is responsible for contacting and
training Federal agencies and issuing the FedTax User Guide and installation
diskette.
(2) Each agency is given a special Form 8655, Reporting Agent Authorization, with instructions to complete and sign the form and fax or mail to the Andover Service Center.
(a.) The Form 8655 is pre-printed with the Financial Systems Division of FMS identified as the Reporting Agent with an EIN of 94-2241503.
(b.) If an agency wishes to submit payments under multiple Agency Location Codes (ALC's), each office should prepare and submit a separate Form 8655. All ALC's for an EIN will be allowed to send payments, but only the office designated as the parent will be able to file the Form 941.
(c.) Form 8655 is used by Andover to add the agency to FedTax, and to update the magnetic tape indicator on the Taxpayer Information File (TIF).
(3) Andover will review the Form 8655 for completeness and accuracy.
(a.) The User ID is required for an agency to be established on FedTax. This should have been entered on the top of Form 8655 by FMS or the agency.
(b.) Be sure to verify the EIN and name of the agency to ensure consistency with the BMF before adding the record to FedTax. Remember that the first four significant characters of the name line will be used as the name control for payment and return processing. This name control must match the name control of the agency on the master file.
(c.) Review the payroll information to ensure that the proper dates will be established on FedTax. Normally, payroll dates should start at the beginning of a quarter.
(d.) If any required information is unclear or missing, call the contact person listed on the Form 8655 for clarification.
(e.) Verify the Agency Location Code and User ID with the Financial Management Service by calling 202-874-8270. FMS must also add the FedTax option to the agency's GOALS profile.
Until such time as the Financial Management Service, operating under auspices of authority delegated to the Fiscal Assistant Secretary, issues the Form 8655 Reporting Agent Authorization certificate, the Internal Revenue Service lacks even colorable personal and subject matter jurisdiction over any given employer within States of the Union. Unless he receives and subsequently completes and files the Reporting Agent Authorization certificate, an employer is not authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury to withhold income and employment taxes from wages of employees.
Whether subject matter is resident or nonresident federal income taxes imposed by Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code or qualified resident or nonresident state income taxes administered as though imposed by Chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, the person liable is the agency disbursement officer, per 26 U.S.C. § 3404:
§ 3404. Return and payment by government employer.
If the employer is the United States, or a State, or political subdivision
thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality
of any one or more of the foregoing, the return of the amount deducted
and withheld upon any wages may be made by an officer or employee of the
United States, or of such State, or political subdivision, or of the District
of Columbia, or of such agency or instrumentality, as the case may be,
having control of the payment of such wages, or appropriately designated
for that purpose.
The employee, whether an individual, partnership, corporation, trust or other juristic entity, is not required to keep books and records and file returns except in the event he, she or it wishes to file a claim, per 26 CFR § 31.6001-1:
§ 31.6001-1 Records in general.
(a) Form of records. The records required by the regulations
in this part shall be kept accurately, but no particular form is required
for keeping the records. Such forms and systems of accounting shall be
used as will enable the district director to ascertain whether liability
for tax is incurred and, if so, the amount thereof.
(b) Copies of returns, schedules, and statements. Every person who is required, by the regulations in this part or by instructions applicable to any form prescribed thereunder, to keep any copy of any return, schedule, statement, or other document, shall keep such copy as a part of his records.
(c) Records of claimants. Any person (including an employee) who, pursuant to the regulations in this part, claims a refund, credit or abatement, shall keep a complete and detailed record with respect to the tax, interest, addition to the tax, additional amount, or assessable penalty to which the claim relates. Such record shall include any records required of the claimant by paragraph (b) of this section and by § § 31.6001-2 to 31.6001-5, inclusive, which relate to the claim.
(d) Records of employees. While not mandatory (except in the case of claims), it is advisable for each employee to keep permanent, accurate records showing the name and address of each employer for whom he performs services as an employee, the dates of beginning and termination of such services, the information with respect to himself which is required by the regulations in this subpart to be kept by employers, and the statements furnished in accordance with the provisions of § 31.6051-1.
(e) Place and period for keeping records. (1) All records required by the regulations in this part shall be kept, by the person required to keep them, at one or more convenient and safe locations accessible to internal revenue officers, and shall at all times be available for inspection by such officers.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in the following sentence, every person required by the regulations in this part to keep records in respect of a tax (whether or not such person incurs liability for such tax) shall maintain such records for at least four years after the due date of such tax for the return period to which the records relate, or the date such tax is paid, whichever is the later. The records of claimants required by paragraph (c) of this section shall be maintained for a period of at least four years after the date the claim is filed.
(f) Cross reference. See § § 31.6001-2 to 31.6001-5, inclusive, for additional records required with respect to the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, the Railroad Retirement Tax Act, the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, and the collection of income tax at source on wages, respectively. [Underscore added for emphasis]
As determined by 26 CFR § 31.6001-1(d), supra, liability for federal and qualified state income taxes arises at the point of transaction, as is the case for sales taxes. Whether the disbursement officer (26 U.S.C. § 3404) functioning in the capacity of a withholding agent (26 U.S.C. §§ 1441, et seq.) withholds them or not, he is liable for reporting and paying federal and qualified state resident and nonresident income taxes. Liability issues under the requirement to withhold from wages at the source, per 26 U.S.C. § 3402.
Consult Part 5 (Collecting Process) Chapter 18 (Liability Determination) Section 2 (Business Returns IRS 6020(b) Processing) of the Internal Revenue Manual. The current edition of the IRM is posted on the Internal Revenue Service web page. Section 5.18.2.3.5 verifies application of Federal and State Information Sharing Agreements: “1. Federal and state information sharing agreements exist, requiring sharing of information regarding the 6020(b) assessments. Agreements usually require the sharing of information as tax returns are assessed…”
The agreements require reporting tax-related information concerning government agencies and personnel; there is no corresponding authorization to report income and employment tax liabilities of private enterprise in States of the Union. The list of substitute returns IRS personnel may unilaterally execute under authority of 26 U.S.C. § 6020(b) is at § 5.18.2.3 of the Internal Revenue Manual: Form 720 (Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return), Form 940 (Employer’s Annual Federal Unemployment Tax Return), Form 941 (Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return), Form 943 (Employer’s Annual Return for Agricultural Employees), Form 1065 (U.S. Partnership Return of Income) and Form 2290 (Federal Use Tax Return on Highway Motor Vehicles). There is no additional authority under 26 U.S.C. § 6020(b) and implementing 26 CFR Part 301 regulations for IRS personnel to unilaterally execute Form 1040 (individual), Form 1041 (trust) or Form 1120 (corporation) income tax returns or corresponding qualified state income tax returns. It follows that both state and federal individual, trust and corporation income tax returns are mandatory only in unique circumstances and are otherwise optional. In any event, the state-federal agreement is applicable only to federal agencies and personnel and the Internal Revenue Service, functioning in ancillary and support capacities for the Director of OMB and the Fiscal Assistant Secretary, otherwise has colorable jurisdiction within States of the Union solely with respect to federal agencies and personnel.
At outer limits, venue of the Internal Revenue Service, i.e., geographical jurisdiction where IRS personnel have standing to enforce Acts of Congress other than internal revenue laws (Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code and qualified state income taxes) is likewise limited. Enforcement of customs laws (26 U.S.C. § 7327 & 26 CFR Part 403; Treasury Delegation Order #157), including money laundering laws (18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 & 1957; Treasury Delegation Order #158), is geographically limited to special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, defined at 18 U.S.C. § 7:
§ 7. Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of
the United States defined
The term "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United
States", as used in this title, includes:
(1) The high seas, any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State, and any vessel belonging in whole or in part to the United States or any citizen thereof, or to any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof, when such vessel is within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State.
(2) Any vessel registered, licensed, or enrolled under the laws of the United States, and being on a voyage upon the waters of any of the Great Lakes, or any of the waters connecting them, or upon the Saint Lawrence River where the same constitutes the International Boundary Line.
(3) Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building.
(4) Any island, rock, or key containing deposits of guano, which may, at the discretion of the President, be considered as appertaining to the United States.
(5) Any aircraft belonging in whole or in part to the United States, or any citizen thereof, or to any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof, while such aircraft is in flight over the high seas, or over any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State.
(6) Any vehicle used or designed for flight or navigation in space and on the registry of the United States pursuant to the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies and the Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, while that vehicle is in flight, which is from the moment when all external doors are closed on Earth following embarkation until the moment when one such door is opened on Earth for disembarkation or in the case of a forced landing, until the competent authorities take over the responsibility for the vehicle and for persons and property aboard.
(7) Any place outside the jurisdiction of any nation with respect to an offense by or against a national of the United States.
(8) To the extent permitted by international law, any foreign vessel during a voyage having a scheduled departure from or arrival in the United States with respect to an offense committed by or against a national of the United States.
(9) With respect to offenses committed by or against a national of the United States as that term is used in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act--
(A) the premises of United States diplomatic, consular, military or other United States Government missions or entities in foreign States, including the buildings, parts of buildings, and land appurtenant or ancillary thereto or used for purposes of those missions or entities, irrespective of ownership; and
(B) residences in foreign States and the land appurtenant or ancillary thereto, irrespective of ownership, used for purposes of those missions or entities or used by United States personnel assigned to those missions or entities.
Nothing in this paragraph shall be deemed to supersede any treaty or international agreement with which this paragraph conflicts. This paragraph does not apply with respect to an offense committed by a person described in section 3261(a) of this title.
Per 26 CFR Part 403, Delegation Orders #157 & 158, and Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, prosecution of customs laws, including money-laundering laws, is admiralty in nature and does not fall within the scope of the “arising under” clause at Article III § 2 and the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which secure due process in the course of the common law to the American people. See Wayman v. Southard, 23 U.S. 1, and The Sarah, 21 U.S. 391.
Subscribe: DanMeador-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe: DanMeador-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
List owner: DanMeador-owner@yahoogroups.com
URL to this page: http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/DanMeador
|
|
ANSWERS TO THE "WORLD'S EASIEST QUIZ"
1) How long did the Hundred Years War last?
*116 years
2) Which country makes Panama hats?
*Ecuador
3) From which animal do we get cat gut?
*Sheep and Horses
4) In which month do Russians celebrate the October Revolution?
*November
5) What is a camel's hair brush made of?
*Squirrel fur
6) The Canary Islands in the Pacific are named after what animal?
*Dogs
7) What was King George VI's first name?
*Albert
8) What color is a purple finch?
*Crimson
9) Where are Chinese gooseberries from?
*New Zealand
10) What is the color of the black box in a commercial airplane?
*Orange, of course.
What do you mean you failed?
|
Dewey, Cheetum & Howe |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
goto top .....mailto:
therockyview@tellme1st.net