A year or so ago, I gave seven of my old computer printers, all in working order to Goodwill. I believed that they would be properly recycled. This story shows the truth.
This is some of the best investigative reporting I've seen. It must have cost a lot of money to follow all the leads, and travel to China. It takes real courage to risk your life to expose this kind of evil. We should stop poisoning children, just because we can't pay the price of proper recycling. If I get an address on that 'small business' ass in Denver I'll pay him a personal visit, and feed him some CRT lead.
Good Work 60 Minutes!
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Friday, November 07, 2008
Voting is Your Right and Duty
Information is power, access is everything, know your rights, do your duty.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
The Number of the Beast
In this book Heinlein introduced the concept called "pantheistic solipsism" or "world-as-myth" — the theory that universes are created by the act of imagining them, so that somewhere even fictional worlds (Oz is one of the examples Heinlein uses) are real.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Rubick's Tessaract
Rubick's Cube was too easy.
We added some level of difficulty...
So, now we are working on something new..
We added some level of difficulty...
So, now we are working on something new..
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Age of American Unreason
BILL MOYERS: When you wonder, as you do in the book, if any candidate has the will or courage to talk about ignorance as a political issue I find it hard to imagine a politician going very far, getting very far by telling his or her constituents--
SUSAN JACOBY: They're dopes.
BILL MOYERS: Yeah. You're ignorant. By ignorant you mean lack of knowledge, unaware.
SUSAN JACOBY: Lack of knowledge, right.
BILL MOYERS: You don't mean stupid, which means--
SUSAN JACOBY: No.
BILL MOYERS: --unintelligent.
SUSAN JACOBY: No.
BILL MOYERS: Or dimwitted.
SUSAN JACOBY: No.
BILL MOYERS: But I can't imagine a politician succeeded by saying, "We're an ignorant culture and an ignorant people."
SUSAN JACOBY: No. But I can imagine a politician succeeding by saying, "We as a people have not lived up to our obligation to learn what we ought to learn to make informed decisions." I can imagine candidates saying, "And we in the Congress have been guilty of that too." Because it's not just the public that's ignorant. We get the government we deserve.
In other words, you wouldn't say to people, "You're a dope." You would say, "We have got to do better in-- about learning the things we need to know to make sound public policy." We can't learn the things we need to know from five-second sound bite commercials. We can't learn the things that we need to know from a quick hit on the Internet to see the latest person making a fool of themself on YouTube. We can only learn the things we need to know from talking to each other, from books. And we all need to do a lot more of that.
You know, what I don't see on the campaign trail-- if universal healthcare were one of my priorities as a candidate, first thing I'd be doing, I'd be having sessions all over the country with three groups of people, nurses, doctors, and patients. You don't need to know what the insurance industry thinks. Because you know what they think. They're going to oppose anything that they think will place any limits on medical spending and their ability to charge you higher health insurance premiums. But I'd be sitting down in unscripted sessions with people so that when-- if I was elected I could take that knowledge with me into the White House. So I could get my message across before Harry and Louise. That's what being an educator means.
And I think a candidate could say that to people. Not, "You're dopes." But, "We all need to know a lot more than we know." We've become satisfied with too little. We've become satisfied with the lowest common denominator. It is not good enough when 23 percent of our young people who have had some college, only 23 percent of them can find these countries on a map. We all need to be able to learn how to find these countries on a map.
BILL MOYERS: The book is THE AGE OF AMERICAN UNREASON, published by coincidence or providence on Darwin's birthday, right?
SUSAN JACOBY: 199th anniversary of Darwin's birth.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Waking Life
Existentialism
Dreams For Free
Free Will
Language (abstract meaning, metaphor, patterns of relationship, clowds of truth, what we live for)
Suffering (The gap between a man and a chimp < man and philosopher)
Where there is fire we will carry gasoline. (All Therory and no ACTION!)
Would you buy the Brooklin Bridge?
Self Destruction - I must be insane.
Death and Taxes
I don't want to be an Ant.
My Waking Life
Monday, February 04, 2008
Why Pay Taxes?
For many years there has been a series of conspiracy theories centered upon the subject of "Why Pay Taxes". They have concerned everything from the benevolent conspiracy to for the Federal Reserve, to the fact that Nixon took the dollar off the gold standard in 1971. These strange, often confusing legalistic, theories have in common the idea that the US system of government has gotten out of control, and we are no longer a "Government of the People", but have become a government against the people. Regardless of you personal politics, no one likes paying taxes that will go to fund programs and wars with which you would not agree, but in general most people would be willing to pay a "tax" or "tithe" to support a system or organization of governance, but they all wish to pay a different percentage amount.
For instance, I would be willing to pay up to 50% of my income on a progressive scale, if all the basic needs of the people were met in my society (i.e. hunger, shelter, basic education, basic healthcare, etc.). That way the foundation level of our society would act like a safety net, and no one will die for lack of basic resources. Yet the richest of us would only contribute half of their personal income, this is similar to what is current in most of Northern Europe.
My concern is that those who think that government should have some kind of moral control over the population, that their religion is fundamental to that moral control, and they fear any other religion's control, will take over the control of the government. That will undoubtedly lead to civil war, religious war, and given our current level of technology, the end of times. But that is another discussion.
Below is a letter to the IRS that details an argument to the effect that our government lacks the legal authority to tax it's citizens. It seems obvious to me that without such authority there is no government, but given the specifics of this letter, I think it is an argument worth investigating. The consequences if correct is the final division of the United States into multiple nations, or a total reassessment of our foundational law, the Constitution of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------
We The People Foundation
For Constitutional Education, Inc.
2458 Ridge Road, Queensbury, NY 12804
Telephone: (518) 656-3578 Fax: (518) 656-9724
June 9, 2006
VIA CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT MAIL
Hon. Alberto R. Gonzales
Attorney General of the U.S.
Dept. of Justice Rm. 4400
950 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Mr. Mark Everson, Commissioner
Internal Revenue Service
1111 Constitution Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20224
Re: Petition for Redress of Grievance – No requirement to file fraudulent 1040 Form.
Gentlemen:
Please take notice of this Petition requesting a public explanation of your recent conduct in Peoria, Illinois, regarding the case of U.S. v Robert Lawrence.
What you did seems remarkable by virtue of its inconsistency.
On March 17, 2006 you had the Grand Jury indict Robert Lawrence on three counts of tax evasion and three counts of willful failure to file a personal income tax return.
However, on May 12, 2006, the Friday before the Monday start of the trial, you suddenly asked federal Judge Michael Mihm to dismiss all six counts with prejudice.
Indicting and then permanently dismissing without any court action occurs so rarely as to require the Department of Justice to post a public explanation in order to satisfy the public’s curiosity about this strange working of justice. This Foundation decided to investigate the facts and circumstances of the Lawrence case because we found no such public notice in Peoria, on the DOJ website, or in any other public forum. We wanted to determine the probable cause of DOJ’s remarkable act.
Our research has led us to conclude that:
The DOJ filed the criminal complaint against Lawrence because it intended to abuse Lawrence’s rights under the constitution and law pursuant thereto.
The appearance of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) in Lawrence’s pleading sent a shock through the DOJ because Congress intended it to protect the public from IRS abuse, and the DOJ had no defense against it.
Even though the DOJ knew about the PRA in advance, its revelation virtually forced you and the DOJ attorney to dismiss rather than to lose the case and risk public awareness of the power of the PRA in protecting the public.
The DOJ therefore has little interest in justice in cases it prosecutes for the IRS, but wants only to obtain wrongful convictions of innocent people whom the IRS intends to abuse by misapplication of law.
Those are our conclusions. We want you to answer to the accuracy of those conclusions. Additionally, consider these questions about the power of the PRA.
1. Did the PRA force the DOJ to ask Judge Mihm to dismiss the Grand Jury’s Lawrence indictment with prejudice?
2. Did the PRA force the DOJ to ask the Court to dismiss all counts in the indictment?
3. Did the PRA force the DOJ to dismiss a case it had worked for years putting together against Lawrence?
4. Did the PRA force the DOJ to dismiss the case against Lawrence on the last business day before the trial was to begin?
5. Did the PRA force the DOJ to dismiss the case with the requirement that it would never again attempt to prosecute Lawrence for those alleged crimes?
The Internet and wires were alive with such questions and rumors following DOJ’s sudden and remarkable dismissal motion that was filed at 2 p.m. on May 12, 2006.
To determine cause and effect, and put the rumors to rest, we started our investigation by obtaining the Docket Sheet for U.S. v Lawrence, Case No. 06-cr-10019, U.S. District Court, Central District of Illinois (Peoria).
From the Docket Sheet we obtained and read copies of the Indictment and each of the Lawrence’s pleadings including:
#04 First Motion for Bill of Particulars.
#07 Motion for Bill of Particulars to be directed by the Court.
#08 Motion to Continue April 13th arraignment pending responses to #04.
#09 Brief re #07 and #08.
#19 Proposed Voir Dire questions
#25 Notice of Expert Witnesses, and opposition to continuance.
From the Docket Sheet we obtained and read copies of each of the government’s pleadings, including:
#10 Response to #4, #7 and #8
#12 Motion for Discovery
#15 Notice of Non-Disclosure
#17 Exhibit List
#18 Motion in Limine
#20 Motion to Continue Trial
#22 Notice of Expert Witnesses
#23 Notice of Filing Expert Resume
#24 Motion for Protective Order
#26 Proposed Voir Dire
#27 Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice Counts 1-6.
We obtained and read copies of the following documents that were not filed with the Court but were delivered to DOJ on May 11, 2006 by Lawrence’s attorney (Oscar Stilley) in response to DOJ’s discovery demands.
[ed. note: Click here to access ALL the defense documents listed immediately below.]
Form 1040 with OMB # 1545-0074 for years 1992 through 2005
Form 1040A with OMB # 1545-0085 for years 1992 through 2004
Form 1040A with OMB # 1545-0074 for year 2005
Form 1040EZ with OMB # 1545-0675 for years 1992 through 2004
Form 1040EZ with OMB # 1545-0074 for year 2005
Form 1040ES with OMB # 1545-0087 for years 1992 through 2005
Form 1040ES with OMB # 1545-0074 for year 2006
Form 2555 with OMB # 1545-0067 for year 2004
Form 2555 with OMB # 1545-0074 for year 2005
Instructions for form 1040 for years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2004, 2005
SF-83 Application for 1986
83-I Application for 1998
We obtained and read copies of the following court decisions regarding the PRA:
Dole v. United Steelworkers Of America Et Al., 494 U.S. 26 (1990)
United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619 (10th Cir. 1990)
United States v. Dawes, 951 F.2d 1189 (10th Cir. 1991)
Salberg v. United States, 969 F.2d 379 (7th Cir. 1992)
United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34 (6th Cir. 1990)
United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356 (9th Cir. 1991)
United States v. Hatch, 919 F.2d 1394 (9th Cir. 1990)
United States v. Smith, 866 F.2d 1092; (9th Cir. 1989)
United States v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698 (11th Cir. 1992)
United States v. Holden, 963 F.2d 1114 (8th Cir. 1992)
We obtained and read the following Law Review Article regarding the PRA:
49 ADMIN. L. REV. 111, Paperwork Redux: The (Stronger) Paperwork Reduction Act Of 1995, by Jeffrey S. Lubbers.
We obtained and read a copy of each Notice of Proposed Rule Making and each Final Rule as published in the Federal Register by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), who was designated in the PRA as the overseer of all collection information:
47 FR 39515. Notice of proposed rulemaking 5 CFR Part 1320. Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President. September 8, 1982.
48 FR 13666. Final rule. 5 CFR Part 1320. Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President. March 31, 1983
52 FR 27768. Notice of proposed rulemaking. 5 CFR Part 1320. Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President. July 23, 1987
53 FR 16618. Final rule. 5 CFR Part 1320. Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President. May 10, 1988
60 FR 30441. Notice of proposed rulemaking. 5 CFR Part 1320. Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President. June 8, 1995
60 FR 44981. Final rule. 5 CFR Part 1320. Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President. August 29, 1995
We obtained and read every section of the PRA including:
44 USCS § 3501. Purpose
44 USCS § 3502. Definitions
44 USCS § 3503. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
44 USCS § 3504. Authority and functions of Director
44 USCS § 3505. Assignment of tasks and deadlines
44 USCS § 3506. Federal agency responsibilities
44 USCS § 3507. Public information collection activities; submission to
Director; approval and delegation
44 USCS § 3508. Determination of necessity for information; hearing
44 USCS § 3509. Designation of central collection agency
44 USCS § 3510. Cooperation of agencies in making information available
44 USCS § 3511. Establishment and operation of Government Information
Locator Service
44 USCS § 3512. Public protection
44 USCS § 3513. Director review of agency activities; reporting; agency
response
44 USCS § 3514. Responsiveness to Congress
44 USCS § 3515. Administrative powers
44 USCS § 3516. Rules and regulations
44 USCS § 3517. Consultation with other agencies and the public
44 USCS § 3518. Effect on existing laws and regulations
44 USCS § 3519. Access to information
44 USCS § 3520. Establishment of task force on information collection and
dissemination
44 USCS § 3521. Authorization of appropriations
We obtained and read every section of 5 CFR Part 1320, which are OMB’s regulations implementing the PRA:
Section 1320.1 Purpose
Section 1320.2 Effect
Section 1320.3 Definitions
Section 1320.4 Coverage
Section 1320.5 General Requirements
Section 1320.6 Public protection
Section 1320.7 Agency head and Senior Official responsibilities
Section 1320.8 Agency collection of information responsibilities
Section 1320.9 Agency certifications for proposed collections of information
Section 1320.10 Clearance of collections of information, other than
those contained in proposed rules or in current rules
Section 1320.11 Clearance of collections of information in proposed rules
Section 1320.12 Clearance of collections of information in current rules
Section 1320.13 Emergency processing
Section 1320.14 Public access
Section 1320.15 Independent regulatory agency override authority.
Based on our review of these documents, we believe the following:
The DOJ dismissed the indictment against Lawrence, with prejudice, upon DOJ’s receipt from Lawrence’s attorney (on May 11, the eve of the trial) of the documents Lawrence intended to enter into evidence.
The DOJ was not going to be able to keep the evidence from the jury because it did not have time to manipulate the Court before the trial began.
As the PRA explicitly authorized him to do, Lawrence intended to argue a PRA defense, based on the fact that the IRS form 1040 did not bear a valid control number assigned by the OMB Director in accordance with the PRA.
The DOJ concluded that the jury would acquit Lawrence based on his knowledge that the Court could not penalize him for failing to file a form 1040 because of the invalid control number.
The DOJ knew the jury would hear evidence that supported Lawrence, and that the evidence (the lack of a valid control number on the 1040, and the absence of other disclosure, use and approval requirements mandated by the PRA) would destroy the DOJ’s case.
The DOJ realized that if the case went to trial, not only the jury, but the whole body politic would learn that no person has been required to file a 1040 because the form has never displayed a valid control number assigned by the OMB Director in accordance with the PRA.
From our research, we have also concluded that:
1. The IRS, with some cooperation by the OMB, at least since 1995, has knowingly violated the requirements of the PRA by failing to obtain and print a valid OMB control number on Form 1040 and other IRS forms.
2. The IRS follows the policy of unlawfully persecuting, penalizing, and prosecuting individuals for failure to file a 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 IRS violations of the PRA and its implementing regulations that invalidate Form 1040 include these:
1. IRS has continually violated PRA Section 3506(c)(1)(B)(iii). The section mandates that the 1040 form must inform the recipient of:
(I) the reasons the information 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) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain a benefit, or 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 (i.e., issued in accordance with the requirements of PRA).
2. IRS has continually violated of PRA Section 3507(a)(1)(C). The section mandates that the IRS shall not conduct or sponsor the collection of information via a 1040 unless in advance of the adoption or revision of the 1040 the IRS has submitted to OMB the proposed 1040 form along with copies of pertinent statutory authority and regulations authorizing the IRS to collect the information on the 1040 form. The clearance packages that the IRS submits to the OMB make no mention of IRC Section 1, 61, 63, 6011, 6012, 6091, 7203 or any of the other sections federal judges alternately cite as “the” authority that authorizes IRS to collect information via the 1040.
3. The IRS and OMB have continually violated PRA Section 3507(g) and 5 CFR Section 1320.8(b)(1). Those sections mandate that OMB control numbers must expire after three years, even if the IRS made no changes to its 1040 form during that time. Form 1040 has had the same OMB control number for 24 years. Under Section 3507(g), every OMB control number must expire every three years, or sooner. OMB approves a 1040 for only a three year period so as to ensure that at least once every three years the IRS reviews the 1040 form, publishes its review in the Federal Register, and seeks public input. Apparently, the IRS has not submitted a certification to OMB with an explanation of why it would be inappropriate for OMB to issue a control number with an expiration date.
4. The IRS has continually violated PRA Section 3512 ("Public Protection"). This section prohibits the IRS from penalizing any person for failing to file a “bootleg” 1040. The 1040 form falls into the “bootleg” class if it does not display a valid OMB control number and the disclaimer that no response is required without such a control number. The 1995 amendments strengthened this provision by making clear that IRS victims can invoke this protection "in the form of a complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time during the agency administrative process or judicial action applicable thereto." In spite of this, the IRS routinely penalizes and prosecutes people for failing to file the 1040 tax return. Although required by law, IRS never informs people about the bootleg nature of the 1040 form, nor the fact that its hapless victims have no legal obligation to file such bootleg forms.
Section 3512 of the PRA, titled “Public Protection” reads as follows:
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that is subject to this subchapter [44 USCS § § 3501 et seq.] if--
(1) the collection of information does not display a valid control number assigned by the Director in accordance with this subchapter [44 USCS § § 3501 et seq.]; or
(2) the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information that such person is not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a valid control number.
(b) The protection provided by this section may be raised in the form of a complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time during the agency administrative process or judicial action applicable thereto.
Because of the PRA’s Public Protection clause, agencies have an incentive to make sure that all forms and related regulations bear valid, up-to-date, prominently legible OMB control numbers.
The instructions for OMB Form 83-I, which the IRS 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 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."
Fortunately, Robert Lawrence knew his rights under the PRA, and DOJ attorneys knew the defense attorney had cornered them, and that they would not prevail on a Motion In Limine designed to keep Lawrence from effectively arguing a PRA defense. As I have stated, we believe this caused DOJ to dismiss the indictment against Lawrence.
As for nearly countless other individuals, they do not know their Rights or the IRS’s and OMB’s obligations under the PRA. As a result, the IRS and DOJ conspire at all levels, from senior executives to the lowliest agents and legal assistants, to prosecute, penalize, and victimize innocent Americans for failing to file a bootleg 1040, even though their victims have no legal obligation to file it.
The Peoria affair raises serious “abuse of federal power” concerns. We question not only the actions of IRS and DOJ since 1981, but also OMB’s behavior as it appears to have willingly looked the other way rather than to require IRS to fully comply with the Law and to report the IRS’s miscreant negligence to the U.S. Treasury Secretary and the President.
In addition, various federal judges and their law clerks who know the legal meaning of the phrase, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law,” have blatantly ignored the clear and unambiguous meaning of the provisions of the PRA. Instead of heeding it and advancing its protections to the aid of IRS victims, they have waged complicit war against the People for willful failure to file a bootleg 1040 form under any of a variety of vague, confusing, circuitous, and questionable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.
We believe, in accordance with the PRA and the circumstances of the Lawrence case dismissal that Americans have no obligation to file bootleg 1040 forms that are bootleg by virtue of bearing no current, valid OMB control number. We intend to so inform supporters of our Foundation, members of the We The People Congress, and of the general public, unless you respond to this Petition for Redress with some explanation other than the one I have propounded herein.
If you agree with our analysis, we direct you in the name of the People of the United States of America to order your minions to follow the law to the letter, lest they face criminal prosecution for violating numerous laws and the Constitution of the United States of America, not the least of which are their oaths of office. Accordingly, we expect that you will correct the IRS forms so they bear the proper OMB control numbers, accurately reflecting the underlining statutory authority upon which the OMB control number relies pursuant to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act. Further we demand that you order IRS employees to immediately stop persecuting those who fail to file the fraudulent, counterfeit IRS 1040 form.
If we are mistaken in our analysis of the Lawrence case and its implications for the People of the United States of America who need not file bootleg IRS forms, please respond to this petition in a timely manner with a proper and complete explanation of our errors in fact or reasoning and a correct analysis.
Yours truly,
___________________
Robert L. Schulz
Chairman
Cc: Mr. Rob Portman, Director VIA CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT MAIL
Office of Management and Budget
725 17th St., N.W.
Washington, DC 20503
For instance, I would be willing to pay up to 50% of my income on a progressive scale, if all the basic needs of the people were met in my society (i.e. hunger, shelter, basic education, basic healthcare, etc.). That way the foundation level of our society would act like a safety net, and no one will die for lack of basic resources. Yet the richest of us would only contribute half of their personal income, this is similar to what is current in most of Northern Europe.
My concern is that those who think that government should have some kind of moral control over the population, that their religion is fundamental to that moral control, and they fear any other religion's control, will take over the control of the government. That will undoubtedly lead to civil war, religious war, and given our current level of technology, the end of times. But that is another discussion.
Below is a letter to the IRS that details an argument to the effect that our government lacks the legal authority to tax it's citizens. It seems obvious to me that without such authority there is no government, but given the specifics of this letter, I think it is an argument worth investigating. The consequences if correct is the final division of the United States into multiple nations, or a total reassessment of our foundational law, the Constitution of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------
We The People Foundation
For Constitutional Education, Inc.
2458 Ridge Road, Queensbury, NY 12804
Telephone: (518) 656-3578 Fax: (518) 656-9724
June 9, 2006
VIA CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT MAIL
Hon. Alberto R. Gonzales
Attorney General of the U.S.
Dept. of Justice Rm. 4400
950 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Mr. Mark Everson, Commissioner
Internal Revenue Service
1111 Constitution Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20224
Re: Petition for Redress of Grievance – No requirement to file fraudulent 1040 Form.
Gentlemen:
Please take notice of this Petition requesting a public explanation of your recent conduct in Peoria, Illinois, regarding the case of U.S. v Robert Lawrence.
What you did seems remarkable by virtue of its inconsistency.
On March 17, 2006 you had the Grand Jury indict Robert Lawrence on three counts of tax evasion and three counts of willful failure to file a personal income tax return.
However, on May 12, 2006, the Friday before the Monday start of the trial, you suddenly asked federal Judge Michael Mihm to dismiss all six counts with prejudice.
Indicting and then permanently dismissing without any court action occurs so rarely as to require the Department of Justice to post a public explanation in order to satisfy the public’s curiosity about this strange working of justice. This Foundation decided to investigate the facts and circumstances of the Lawrence case because we found no such public notice in Peoria, on the DOJ website, or in any other public forum. We wanted to determine the probable cause of DOJ’s remarkable act.
Our research has led us to conclude that:
The DOJ filed the criminal complaint against Lawrence because it intended to abuse Lawrence’s rights under the constitution and law pursuant thereto.
The appearance of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) in Lawrence’s pleading sent a shock through the DOJ because Congress intended it to protect the public from IRS abuse, and the DOJ had no defense against it.
Even though the DOJ knew about the PRA in advance, its revelation virtually forced you and the DOJ attorney to dismiss rather than to lose the case and risk public awareness of the power of the PRA in protecting the public.
The DOJ therefore has little interest in justice in cases it prosecutes for the IRS, but wants only to obtain wrongful convictions of innocent people whom the IRS intends to abuse by misapplication of law.
Those are our conclusions. We want you to answer to the accuracy of those conclusions. Additionally, consider these questions about the power of the PRA.
1. Did the PRA force the DOJ to ask Judge Mihm to dismiss the Grand Jury’s Lawrence indictment with prejudice?
2. Did the PRA force the DOJ to ask the Court to dismiss all counts in the indictment?
3. Did the PRA force the DOJ to dismiss a case it had worked for years putting together against Lawrence?
4. Did the PRA force the DOJ to dismiss the case against Lawrence on the last business day before the trial was to begin?
5. Did the PRA force the DOJ to dismiss the case with the requirement that it would never again attempt to prosecute Lawrence for those alleged crimes?
The Internet and wires were alive with such questions and rumors following DOJ’s sudden and remarkable dismissal motion that was filed at 2 p.m. on May 12, 2006.
To determine cause and effect, and put the rumors to rest, we started our investigation by obtaining the Docket Sheet for U.S. v Lawrence, Case No. 06-cr-10019, U.S. District Court, Central District of Illinois (Peoria).
From the Docket Sheet we obtained and read copies of the Indictment and each of the Lawrence’s pleadings including:
#04 First Motion for Bill of Particulars.
#07 Motion for Bill of Particulars to be directed by the Court.
#08 Motion to Continue April 13th arraignment pending responses to #04.
#09 Brief re #07 and #08.
#19 Proposed Voir Dire questions
#25 Notice of Expert Witnesses, and opposition to continuance.
From the Docket Sheet we obtained and read copies of each of the government’s pleadings, including:
#10 Response to #4, #7 and #8
#12 Motion for Discovery
#15 Notice of Non-Disclosure
#17 Exhibit List
#18 Motion in Limine
#20 Motion to Continue Trial
#22 Notice of Expert Witnesses
#23 Notice of Filing Expert Resume
#24 Motion for Protective Order
#26 Proposed Voir Dire
#27 Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice Counts 1-6.
We obtained and read copies of the following documents that were not filed with the Court but were delivered to DOJ on May 11, 2006 by Lawrence’s attorney (Oscar Stilley) in response to DOJ’s discovery demands.
[ed. note: Click here to access ALL the defense documents listed immediately below.]
Form 1040 with OMB # 1545-0074 for years 1992 through 2005
Form 1040A with OMB # 1545-0085 for years 1992 through 2004
Form 1040A with OMB # 1545-0074 for year 2005
Form 1040EZ with OMB # 1545-0675 for years 1992 through 2004
Form 1040EZ with OMB # 1545-0074 for year 2005
Form 1040ES with OMB # 1545-0087 for years 1992 through 2005
Form 1040ES with OMB # 1545-0074 for year 2006
Form 2555 with OMB # 1545-0067 for year 2004
Form 2555 with OMB # 1545-0074 for year 2005
Instructions for form 1040 for years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2004, 2005
SF-83 Application for 1986
83-I Application for 1998
We obtained and read copies of the following court decisions regarding the PRA:
Dole v. United Steelworkers Of America Et Al., 494 U.S. 26 (1990)
United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619 (10th Cir. 1990)
United States v. Dawes, 951 F.2d 1189 (10th Cir. 1991)
Salberg v. United States, 969 F.2d 379 (7th Cir. 1992)
United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34 (6th Cir. 1990)
United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356 (9th Cir. 1991)
United States v. Hatch, 919 F.2d 1394 (9th Cir. 1990)
United States v. Smith, 866 F.2d 1092; (9th Cir. 1989)
United States v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698 (11th Cir. 1992)
United States v. Holden, 963 F.2d 1114 (8th Cir. 1992)
We obtained and read the following Law Review Article regarding the PRA:
49 ADMIN. L. REV. 111, Paperwork Redux: The (Stronger) Paperwork Reduction Act Of 1995, by Jeffrey S. Lubbers.
We obtained and read a copy of each Notice of Proposed Rule Making and each Final Rule as published in the Federal Register by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), who was designated in the PRA as the overseer of all collection information:
47 FR 39515. Notice of proposed rulemaking 5 CFR Part 1320. Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President. September 8, 1982.
48 FR 13666. Final rule. 5 CFR Part 1320. Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President. March 31, 1983
52 FR 27768. Notice of proposed rulemaking. 5 CFR Part 1320. Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President. July 23, 1987
53 FR 16618. Final rule. 5 CFR Part 1320. Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President. May 10, 1988
60 FR 30441. Notice of proposed rulemaking. 5 CFR Part 1320. Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President. June 8, 1995
60 FR 44981. Final rule. 5 CFR Part 1320. Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President. August 29, 1995
We obtained and read every section of the PRA including:
44 USCS § 3501. Purpose
44 USCS § 3502. Definitions
44 USCS § 3503. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
44 USCS § 3504. Authority and functions of Director
44 USCS § 3505. Assignment of tasks and deadlines
44 USCS § 3506. Federal agency responsibilities
44 USCS § 3507. Public information collection activities; submission to
Director; approval and delegation
44 USCS § 3508. Determination of necessity for information; hearing
44 USCS § 3509. Designation of central collection agency
44 USCS § 3510. Cooperation of agencies in making information available
44 USCS § 3511. Establishment and operation of Government Information
Locator Service
44 USCS § 3512. Public protection
44 USCS § 3513. Director review of agency activities; reporting; agency
response
44 USCS § 3514. Responsiveness to Congress
44 USCS § 3515. Administrative powers
44 USCS § 3516. Rules and regulations
44 USCS § 3517. Consultation with other agencies and the public
44 USCS § 3518. Effect on existing laws and regulations
44 USCS § 3519. Access to information
44 USCS § 3520. Establishment of task force on information collection and
dissemination
44 USCS § 3521. Authorization of appropriations
We obtained and read every section of 5 CFR Part 1320, which are OMB’s regulations implementing the PRA:
Section 1320.1 Purpose
Section 1320.2 Effect
Section 1320.3 Definitions
Section 1320.4 Coverage
Section 1320.5 General Requirements
Section 1320.6 Public protection
Section 1320.7 Agency head and Senior Official responsibilities
Section 1320.8 Agency collection of information responsibilities
Section 1320.9 Agency certifications for proposed collections of information
Section 1320.10 Clearance of collections of information, other than
those contained in proposed rules or in current rules
Section 1320.11 Clearance of collections of information in proposed rules
Section 1320.12 Clearance of collections of information in current rules
Section 1320.13 Emergency processing
Section 1320.14 Public access
Section 1320.15 Independent regulatory agency override authority.
Based on our review of these documents, we believe the following:
The DOJ dismissed the indictment against Lawrence, with prejudice, upon DOJ’s receipt from Lawrence’s attorney (on May 11, the eve of the trial) of the documents Lawrence intended to enter into evidence.
The DOJ was not going to be able to keep the evidence from the jury because it did not have time to manipulate the Court before the trial began.
As the PRA explicitly authorized him to do, Lawrence intended to argue a PRA defense, based on the fact that the IRS form 1040 did not bear a valid control number assigned by the OMB Director in accordance with the PRA.
The DOJ concluded that the jury would acquit Lawrence based on his knowledge that the Court could not penalize him for failing to file a form 1040 because of the invalid control number.
The DOJ knew the jury would hear evidence that supported Lawrence, and that the evidence (the lack of a valid control number on the 1040, and the absence of other disclosure, use and approval requirements mandated by the PRA) would destroy the DOJ’s case.
The DOJ realized that if the case went to trial, not only the jury, but the whole body politic would learn that no person has been required to file a 1040 because the form has never displayed a valid control number assigned by the OMB Director in accordance with the PRA.
From our research, we have also concluded that:
1. The IRS, with some cooperation by the OMB, at least since 1995, has knowingly violated the requirements of the PRA by failing to obtain and print a valid OMB control number on Form 1040 and other IRS forms.
2. The IRS follows the policy of unlawfully persecuting, penalizing, and prosecuting individuals for failure to file a 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 IRS violations of the PRA and its implementing regulations that invalidate Form 1040 include these:
1. IRS has continually violated PRA Section 3506(c)(1)(B)(iii). The section mandates that the 1040 form must inform the recipient of:
(I) the reasons the information 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) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain a benefit, or 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 (i.e., issued in accordance with the requirements of PRA).
2. IRS has continually violated of PRA Section 3507(a)(1)(C). The section mandates that the IRS shall not conduct or sponsor the collection of information via a 1040 unless in advance of the adoption or revision of the 1040 the IRS has submitted to OMB the proposed 1040 form along with copies of pertinent statutory authority and regulations authorizing the IRS to collect the information on the 1040 form. The clearance packages that the IRS submits to the OMB make no mention of IRC Section 1, 61, 63, 6011, 6012, 6091, 7203 or any of the other sections federal judges alternately cite as “the” authority that authorizes IRS to collect information via the 1040.
3. The IRS and OMB have continually violated PRA Section 3507(g) and 5 CFR Section 1320.8(b)(1). Those sections mandate that OMB control numbers must expire after three years, even if the IRS made no changes to its 1040 form during that time. Form 1040 has had the same OMB control number for 24 years. Under Section 3507(g), every OMB control number must expire every three years, or sooner. OMB approves a 1040 for only a three year period so as to ensure that at least once every three years the IRS reviews the 1040 form, publishes its review in the Federal Register, and seeks public input. Apparently, the IRS has not submitted a certification to OMB with an explanation of why it would be inappropriate for OMB to issue a control number with an expiration date.
4. The IRS has continually violated PRA Section 3512 ("Public Protection"). This section prohibits the IRS from penalizing any person for failing to file a “bootleg” 1040. The 1040 form falls into the “bootleg” class if it does not display a valid OMB control number and the disclaimer that no response is required without such a control number. The 1995 amendments strengthened this provision by making clear that IRS victims can invoke this protection "in the form of a complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time during the agency administrative process or judicial action applicable thereto." In spite of this, the IRS routinely penalizes and prosecutes people for failing to file the 1040 tax return. Although required by law, IRS never informs people about the bootleg nature of the 1040 form, nor the fact that its hapless victims have no legal obligation to file such bootleg forms.
Section 3512 of the PRA, titled “Public Protection” reads as follows:
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that is subject to this subchapter [44 USCS § § 3501 et seq.] if--
(1) the collection of information does not display a valid control number assigned by the Director in accordance with this subchapter [44 USCS § § 3501 et seq.]; or
(2) the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information that such person is not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a valid control number.
(b) The protection provided by this section may be raised in the form of a complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time during the agency administrative process or judicial action applicable thereto.
Because of the PRA’s Public Protection clause, agencies have an incentive to make sure that all forms and related regulations bear valid, up-to-date, prominently legible OMB control numbers.
The instructions for OMB Form 83-I, which the IRS 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 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."
Fortunately, Robert Lawrence knew his rights under the PRA, and DOJ attorneys knew the defense attorney had cornered them, and that they would not prevail on a Motion In Limine designed to keep Lawrence from effectively arguing a PRA defense. As I have stated, we believe this caused DOJ to dismiss the indictment against Lawrence.
As for nearly countless other individuals, they do not know their Rights or the IRS’s and OMB’s obligations under the PRA. As a result, the IRS and DOJ conspire at all levels, from senior executives to the lowliest agents and legal assistants, to prosecute, penalize, and victimize innocent Americans for failing to file a bootleg 1040, even though their victims have no legal obligation to file it.
The Peoria affair raises serious “abuse of federal power” concerns. We question not only the actions of IRS and DOJ since 1981, but also OMB’s behavior as it appears to have willingly looked the other way rather than to require IRS to fully comply with the Law and to report the IRS’s miscreant negligence to the U.S. Treasury Secretary and the President.
In addition, various federal judges and their law clerks who know the legal meaning of the phrase, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law,” have blatantly ignored the clear and unambiguous meaning of the provisions of the PRA. Instead of heeding it and advancing its protections to the aid of IRS victims, they have waged complicit war against the People for willful failure to file a bootleg 1040 form under any of a variety of vague, confusing, circuitous, and questionable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.
We believe, in accordance with the PRA and the circumstances of the Lawrence case dismissal that Americans have no obligation to file bootleg 1040 forms that are bootleg by virtue of bearing no current, valid OMB control number. We intend to so inform supporters of our Foundation, members of the We The People Congress, and of the general public, unless you respond to this Petition for Redress with some explanation other than the one I have propounded herein.
If you agree with our analysis, we direct you in the name of the People of the United States of America to order your minions to follow the law to the letter, lest they face criminal prosecution for violating numerous laws and the Constitution of the United States of America, not the least of which are their oaths of office. Accordingly, we expect that you will correct the IRS forms so they bear the proper OMB control numbers, accurately reflecting the underlining statutory authority upon which the OMB control number relies pursuant to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act. Further we demand that you order IRS employees to immediately stop persecuting those who fail to file the fraudulent, counterfeit IRS 1040 form.
If we are mistaken in our analysis of the Lawrence case and its implications for the People of the United States of America who need not file bootleg IRS forms, please respond to this petition in a timely manner with a proper and complete explanation of our errors in fact or reasoning and a correct analysis.
Yours truly,
___________________
Robert L. Schulz
Chairman
Cc: Mr. Rob Portman, Director VIA CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT MAIL
Office of Management and Budget
725 17th St., N.W.
Washington, DC 20503
Friday, January 11, 2008
Gold Salesman Makes His Case
Economics of Empires
A nation-state taxes its own citizens, while an empire taxes other nation-states. The history of empires, from Greek and Roman, to Ottoman and British, teaches that the economic foundation of every single empire is the taxation of other nations. The imperial ability to tax has always rested on a better and stronger economy, and as a consequence, a better and stronger military. One part of the subject taxes went to improve the living standards of the empire; the other part went to strengthen the military dominance necessary to enforce the collection of those taxes.
Historically, taxing the subject state has been in various forms—usually gold and silver, where those were considered money, but also slaves, soldiers, crops, cattle, or other agricultural and natural resources, whatever economic goods the empire demanded and the subject-state could deliver. Historically, imperial taxation has always been direct: the subject state handed over the economic goods directly to the empire.
For the first time in history, in the twentieth century, America was able to tax the world indirectly, through inflation. It did not enforce the direct payment of taxes like all of its predecessor empires did, but distributed instead its own fiat currency, the U.S. Dollar, to other nations in exchange for goods with the intended consequence of inflating and devaluing those dollars and paying back later each dollar with less economic goods—the difference capturing the U.S. imperial tax. Here is how this happened.
Early in the 20th century, the U.S. economy began to dominate the world economy. The U.S. dollar was tied to gold, so that the value of the dollar neither increased, nor decreased, but remained the same amount of gold. The Great Depression, with its preceding inflation from 1921 to 1929 and its subsequent ballooning government deficits, had substantially increased the amount of currency in circulation, and thus rendered the backing of U.S. dollars by gold impossible. This led Roosevelt to decouple the dollar from gold in 1932. Up to this point, the U.S. may have well dominated the world economy, but from an economic point of view, it was not an empire. The fixed value of the dollar did not allow the Americans to extract economic benefits from other countries by supplying them with dollars convertible to gold.
Economically, the American Empire was born with Bretton Woods in 1945. The U.S. dollar was not fully convertible to gold, but was made convertible to gold only to foreign governments. This established the dollar as the reserve currency of the world. It was possible, because during WWII, the United States had supplied its allies with provisions, demanding gold as payment, thus accumulating significant portion of the world’s gold. An Empire would not have been possible if, following the Bretton Woods arrangement, the dollar supply was kept limited and within the availability of gold, so as to fully exchange back dollars for gold. However, the guns-and-butter policy of the 1960’s was an imperial one: the dollar supply was relentlessly increased to finance Vietnam and LBJ’s Great Society. Most of those dollars were handed over to foreigners in exchange for economic goods, without the prospect of buying them back at the same value. The increase in dollar holdings of foreigners via persistent U.S. trade deficits was tantamount to a tax—the classical inflation tax that a country imposes on its own citizens, this time around an inflation tax that U.S. imposed on rest of the world.
When in 1970-1971 foreigners demanded payment for their dollars in gold, The U.S. Government defaulted on its payment on August 15, 1971. While the popular spin told the story of “severing the link between the dollar and gold”, in reality the denial to pay back in gold was an act of bankruptcy by the U.S. Government. Essentially, the U.S. declared itself an Empire. It had extracted an enormous amount of economic goods from the rest of the world, with no intention or ability to return those goods, and the world was powerless to respond— the world was taxed and it could not do anything about it.
From that point on, to sustain the American Empire and to continue to tax the rest of the world, the United States had to force the world to continue to accept ever-depreciating dollars in exchange for economic goods and to have the world hold more and more of those depreciating dollars. It had to give the world an economic reason to hold them, and that reason was oil.
In 1971, as it became clearer and clearer that the U.S Government would not be able to buy back its dollars in gold, it made in 1972-73 an iron-clad arrangement with Saudi Arabia to support the power of the House of Saud in exchange for accepting only U.S. dollars for its oil. The rest of OPEC was to follow suit and also accept only dollars. Because the world had to buy oil from the Arab oil countries, it had the reason to hold dollars as payment for oil. Because the world needed ever increasing quantities of oil at ever increasing oil prices, the world’s demand for dollars could only increase. Even though dollars could no longer be exchanged for gold, they were now exchangeable for oil.
The economic essence of this arrangement was that the dollar was now backed by oil. As long as that was the case, the world had to accumulate increasing amounts of dollars, because they needed those dollars to buy oil. As long as the dollar was the only acceptable payment for oil, its dominance in the world was assured, and the American Empire could continue to tax the rest of the world. If, for any reason, the dollar lost its oil backing, the American Empire would cease to exist. Thus, Imperial survival dictated that oil be sold only for dollars. It also dictated that oil reserves were spread around various sovereign states that weren’t strong enough, politically or militarily, to demand payment for oil in something else. If someone demanded a different payment, he had to be convinced, either by political pressure or military means, to change his mind.
The man that actually did demand Euro for his oil was Saddam Hussein in 2000. At first, his demand was met with ridicule, later with neglect, but as it became clearer that he meant business, political pressure was exerted to change his mind. When other countries, like Iran, wanted payment in other currencies, most notably Euro and Yen, the danger to the dollar was clear and present, and a punitive action was in order. Bush’s Shock-and-Awe in Iraq was not about Saddam’s nuclear capabilities, about defending human rights, about spreading democracy, or even about seizing oil fields; it was about defending the dollar, ergo the American Empire. It was about setting an example that anyone who demanded payment in currencies other than U.S. Dollars would be likewise punished.
Many have criticized Bush for staging the war in Iraq in order to seize Iraqi oil fields. However, those critics can’t explain why Bush would want to seize those fields—he could simply print dollars for nothing and use them to get all the oil in the world that he needs. He must have had some other reason to invade Iraq.
History teaches that an empire should go to war for one of two reasons: (1) to defend itself or (2) benefit from war; if not, as Paul Kennedy illustrates in his magisterial The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, a military overstretch will drain its economic resources and precipitate its collapse. Economically speaking, in order for an empire to initiate and conduct a war, its benefits must outweigh its military and social costs. Benefits from Iraqi oil fields are hardly worth the long-term, multi-year military cost. Instead, Bush must have went into Iraq to defend his Empire. Indeed, this is the case: two months after the United States invaded Iraq, the Oil for Food Program was terminated, the Iraqi Euro accounts were switched back to dollars, and oil was sold once again only for U.S. dollars. No longer could the world buy oil from Iraq with Euro. Global dollar supremacy was once again restored. Bush descended victoriously from a fighter jet and declared the mission accomplished—he had successfully defended the U.S. dollar, and thus the American Empire.
A nation-state taxes its own citizens, while an empire taxes other nation-states. The history of empires, from Greek and Roman, to Ottoman and British, teaches that the economic foundation of every single empire is the taxation of other nations. The imperial ability to tax has always rested on a better and stronger economy, and as a consequence, a better and stronger military. One part of the subject taxes went to improve the living standards of the empire; the other part went to strengthen the military dominance necessary to enforce the collection of those taxes.
Historically, taxing the subject state has been in various forms—usually gold and silver, where those were considered money, but also slaves, soldiers, crops, cattle, or other agricultural and natural resources, whatever economic goods the empire demanded and the subject-state could deliver. Historically, imperial taxation has always been direct: the subject state handed over the economic goods directly to the empire.
For the first time in history, in the twentieth century, America was able to tax the world indirectly, through inflation. It did not enforce the direct payment of taxes like all of its predecessor empires did, but distributed instead its own fiat currency, the U.S. Dollar, to other nations in exchange for goods with the intended consequence of inflating and devaluing those dollars and paying back later each dollar with less economic goods—the difference capturing the U.S. imperial tax. Here is how this happened.
Early in the 20th century, the U.S. economy began to dominate the world economy. The U.S. dollar was tied to gold, so that the value of the dollar neither increased, nor decreased, but remained the same amount of gold. The Great Depression, with its preceding inflation from 1921 to 1929 and its subsequent ballooning government deficits, had substantially increased the amount of currency in circulation, and thus rendered the backing of U.S. dollars by gold impossible. This led Roosevelt to decouple the dollar from gold in 1932. Up to this point, the U.S. may have well dominated the world economy, but from an economic point of view, it was not an empire. The fixed value of the dollar did not allow the Americans to extract economic benefits from other countries by supplying them with dollars convertible to gold.
Economically, the American Empire was born with Bretton Woods in 1945. The U.S. dollar was not fully convertible to gold, but was made convertible to gold only to foreign governments. This established the dollar as the reserve currency of the world. It was possible, because during WWII, the United States had supplied its allies with provisions, demanding gold as payment, thus accumulating significant portion of the world’s gold. An Empire would not have been possible if, following the Bretton Woods arrangement, the dollar supply was kept limited and within the availability of gold, so as to fully exchange back dollars for gold. However, the guns-and-butter policy of the 1960’s was an imperial one: the dollar supply was relentlessly increased to finance Vietnam and LBJ’s Great Society. Most of those dollars were handed over to foreigners in exchange for economic goods, without the prospect of buying them back at the same value. The increase in dollar holdings of foreigners via persistent U.S. trade deficits was tantamount to a tax—the classical inflation tax that a country imposes on its own citizens, this time around an inflation tax that U.S. imposed on rest of the world.
When in 1970-1971 foreigners demanded payment for their dollars in gold, The U.S. Government defaulted on its payment on August 15, 1971. While the popular spin told the story of “severing the link between the dollar and gold”, in reality the denial to pay back in gold was an act of bankruptcy by the U.S. Government. Essentially, the U.S. declared itself an Empire. It had extracted an enormous amount of economic goods from the rest of the world, with no intention or ability to return those goods, and the world was powerless to respond— the world was taxed and it could not do anything about it.
From that point on, to sustain the American Empire and to continue to tax the rest of the world, the United States had to force the world to continue to accept ever-depreciating dollars in exchange for economic goods and to have the world hold more and more of those depreciating dollars. It had to give the world an economic reason to hold them, and that reason was oil.
In 1971, as it became clearer and clearer that the U.S Government would not be able to buy back its dollars in gold, it made in 1972-73 an iron-clad arrangement with Saudi Arabia to support the power of the House of Saud in exchange for accepting only U.S. dollars for its oil. The rest of OPEC was to follow suit and also accept only dollars. Because the world had to buy oil from the Arab oil countries, it had the reason to hold dollars as payment for oil. Because the world needed ever increasing quantities of oil at ever increasing oil prices, the world’s demand for dollars could only increase. Even though dollars could no longer be exchanged for gold, they were now exchangeable for oil.
The economic essence of this arrangement was that the dollar was now backed by oil. As long as that was the case, the world had to accumulate increasing amounts of dollars, because they needed those dollars to buy oil. As long as the dollar was the only acceptable payment for oil, its dominance in the world was assured, and the American Empire could continue to tax the rest of the world. If, for any reason, the dollar lost its oil backing, the American Empire would cease to exist. Thus, Imperial survival dictated that oil be sold only for dollars. It also dictated that oil reserves were spread around various sovereign states that weren’t strong enough, politically or militarily, to demand payment for oil in something else. If someone demanded a different payment, he had to be convinced, either by political pressure or military means, to change his mind.
The man that actually did demand Euro for his oil was Saddam Hussein in 2000. At first, his demand was met with ridicule, later with neglect, but as it became clearer that he meant business, political pressure was exerted to change his mind. When other countries, like Iran, wanted payment in other currencies, most notably Euro and Yen, the danger to the dollar was clear and present, and a punitive action was in order. Bush’s Shock-and-Awe in Iraq was not about Saddam’s nuclear capabilities, about defending human rights, about spreading democracy, or even about seizing oil fields; it was about defending the dollar, ergo the American Empire. It was about setting an example that anyone who demanded payment in currencies other than U.S. Dollars would be likewise punished.
Many have criticized Bush for staging the war in Iraq in order to seize Iraqi oil fields. However, those critics can’t explain why Bush would want to seize those fields—he could simply print dollars for nothing and use them to get all the oil in the world that he needs. He must have had some other reason to invade Iraq.
History teaches that an empire should go to war for one of two reasons: (1) to defend itself or (2) benefit from war; if not, as Paul Kennedy illustrates in his magisterial The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, a military overstretch will drain its economic resources and precipitate its collapse. Economically speaking, in order for an empire to initiate and conduct a war, its benefits must outweigh its military and social costs. Benefits from Iraqi oil fields are hardly worth the long-term, multi-year military cost. Instead, Bush must have went into Iraq to defend his Empire. Indeed, this is the case: two months after the United States invaded Iraq, the Oil for Food Program was terminated, the Iraqi Euro accounts were switched back to dollars, and oil was sold once again only for U.S. dollars. No longer could the world buy oil from Iraq with Euro. Global dollar supremacy was once again restored. Bush descended victoriously from a fighter jet and declared the mission accomplished—he had successfully defended the U.S. dollar, and thus the American Empire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)