Welcome to the fourteenth installment of the Frog Farm. This installment contains: 0) Administrivia 1) Hell, U.S.A. 2) Law Libraries on the Internet: A Partial Listing 3) Forwarded from the Internet 4) "Tax Havens on the Internet", from the Cypherpunks list (forwarded by a Frog subscriber) 5) Random Thoughts on a New Age Order, or, The Relevance of Individual Sovereignty ** Administrivia The home computer's power supply has been fixed, and once more I'm "wired" to the Net. However, I held off on sending this issue out until I wrote something original (for the first time in quite a while). It's article #5. PLEASE GIVE ME FEEDBACK!!!!! I WANT TO KNOW! What do you think of the quality of the articles? Of the Frog Farm in general? If you've shared the information with others, how it was received? What was their reaction? Have any of them gone on to do further research on their own? Passed the information on to even more people? TALK TO ME!!!! Aggggggh. I'm done ranting now. I'm down with a particularly nasty bug right now and can barely breathe, and just feeling particularly frustrated. Thanks for subscribing. ** [This is the most recent version of a "timeline" I'm working on to show famous (and infamous) moments in the history of the North American continent in regards to the freedom enjoyed by individuals. Any corrections, additions, etc., are highly welcomed and encouraged.] Descent Into Hell or, Moments in American History: Statism v. Freedom [pre-1400's; Indian "legislation" and justice system -- need more on this!] [1492-1776; colonial -- need more here too!] 1775 - Beginning of War for Independence 1776 - Declaration of Independence 1794 - Whiskey Rebellion. Protest by farmers over corn liquor tax is suppressed by overwhelming force under the command of Dictator George Washington. All but two farmers are acquitted, and George graciously pardons them. 1798 - Sedition Act; violates 1st Amendment; establishes 1st half of 4th plank of Communist Manifesto (Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels) 1801 - On Thomas Jefferson's recommendation, the federal duty on liquor is abolished. 1836 - Establishment of the Independence of Texas 1845 - Annexation of Texas 1845 - New York State prohibits the public sale of liquor. 1847 - New York State repeals the prohibition on public sale of liquor. 1848 - Child Labor Act says children may only work with State approval 1857 - Dred Scott decision says "niggers ain't got no rights" 1868 - 14th Amendment; removal of allodial land titles, allowing only "equitable interests" in land and property; creation of new class of "citizens" without rights, only privileges; establishes 1st plank of Communist Manifesto (Abolition of property [rights] in land) 1887 - Interstate Commerce Commision Act; establishes 1st half of 6th plank of Communist Manifesto (Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state) 1890 - Sherman Anti-Trust Act makes it illegal to go into business 1903 - Coca-Cola switches from cocaine to caffeine 1906 - Food and Drugs Act 1909 - Prohibition of importation of opium. 1913 - Federal Reserve System (theft through control of 'money' supply); 16th Amendment (income theft); establishes 2nd plank of Communist Manifesto (A heavy progressive or graduated income tax) and 5th plank (Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and exclusive monopoly) - 17th Amendment; violates Article 4, Section 4 of Constitution which guarantees "A Republican form of Government" 1914 - Harrison Narcotic Act; controls sale of opium and its derivatives 1916 - Estate tax; establishes 3rd plank of Communist Manifesto (Abolition of all right of inheritance) 1917 - War controls, tax increases 1919 - 18th Amendment (Volstead Act; alcohol prohibition) 1924 - Heroin manufacture prohibited 1930 - Federal Bureau of Narcotics established 1933 - Prohibition repealed - House Joint Resolution 133 (attempted theft of people's gold) 1934 - The Communications Act; establishes Federal Communications Commission; establishes 2nd half of 6th plank (Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state) 1935 - Socialist Insecurity Act (more income theft) 1937 - Marijuana Tax Act 1942 - WW2 controls & taxes 1964 - "Johnson slugs" 1968 - Public Law 90-369 (attempted theft of people's silver) 1970 - Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) enables seizure of property without due process; with Sedition Act, establishes 4th plank of Communist Manifesto (Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels) 1972 - Complete split of FRN's from gold by Richard Nixon Still need to add: - [ Hoover's New Deal & Smoot-Hawley tariffs? ] - [ FDR's taxes & 2nd amendment infringement & prohibition phase 2? ] - [ Title 17 Health and Safety Code -- zoning/public school taxes? This is other half of 1st Plank, along with 14th Amendment ] - [ Post-1972 developments in the "War on (Some) Drugs" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planks of Communist Manifesto not yet added to above: 7) Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 90's version: Anti-Trust Acts; Dept. of Commerce & Labor; Dept. of Agriculture; Dept. of Interior (Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, Fish & Wildlife Service) Accomplished: est. 1902; 1903; 1862; 1849. 8) Equal liability of all to labor for the national debt; establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 90's version: "Two income families" (inflation, nat'l debt); Women's Suffrage; Affirmative Action; Socialist Unions; Int'l Workers of the World Accomplished: Women in workforce since 1920's (19th Amendment); Civil Rights Act of 1964; est. 1869; est. 1905. 9) Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a "more equitable distributiuon" of the population over the country. 90's version: National Farmers Alliance and Industrial Union Accomplished: 1870-1900's (Title 17 "zoning") 10) Free education for all children in public schools, abolition of children's factory labor, combination of education with industry. 90's version: State run, tax financed schools; socialized "progressive" education; Child Labor Act (children only work with state approval); abolition of private education. Accomplished: Horace Mann (1837-1848); John Dewey (1870-1910); est. 1848. ** [Please let me know if any of the sites on this list are no longer running.] Law Library Catalogs on the Internet key: ---- LB: name of library TA: telnet address TS: type of system LI: login instructions LW: instructions for limiting to law library in a multi library system EX: exit instructions GU: Name of a guide with a fuller description than this list list: ----- LB: Columbia University Law Library TA: pegasus.law.columbia.edu TS: Innopac LI: At the login prompt, enter pegasus EX: Select J on the main menu. GU: Barron LB: Drake University Law Library TA: lib.drake.edu TS: DRA LI: Type lawlib at the username prompt. EX: Type GU: Barron LB: Emory University Law Library TA: emuvm1.cc.emory.edu TS: IBM DOBIS LI: After the VM screen is displayed, press ENTER to get a CP READ. Type DIAL VTAM and press ENTER. At the VTAM screen, type LIB and press ENTER. When the CICS screen appears, press the PF1 key. The next screen will be the initial library systems screen. GU: St. George LB: Georgia State University Law Library TA: library.gsu.edu TS: PALS EX: Type $$soff GU: St. George LB: Iowa State University Law Library TA: isn.iastate.edu TS: NOTIS LI: At the DIAL prompt, type LIB. You will then be prompted for a terminal type. VT100 is recommended. At the VTAM screen, type SCHOLAR2. EX: St. George LB: Marquette University Law Library TA: libus.csd.mu.edu TS: Innopac LI: Press RETURN twice for the login prompt. Type M and press RETURN to see a list of valid terminal types. Select your terminal type. EX: Choose Quit from the main menu. GU: St. George LB: Minnesota Legislative Reference Library TA: msusgw.umn.edu TS: PALS LI: At the "enter destination" prompt, type PALS. LW: type SET LIB LRL EX: Type END. LB: Minnesota State Law Library TA: msusgw.umn.edu TS: PALS LI: At the "enter destination" prompt, enter PALS. EX: Type END. LB: New York University Law Library TA: mclib0.med.nyu.edu TS: Innopac LI: At the login prompt, type library. LW: For the Law Library, select A on the main menu and then 2 on the next menu. EX: To exit, hit D. GU: Barron LB: Southern Methodist University Law Library TA: vm.cis.smu.edu TS: NOTIS LI: You must use TN3270 to access PONI. Once you get to the distinctive signon screen, enter PONI. Then clear the CICS "good morning" message and enter LUSM. EX: Press clear twice and enter CSSF LOGOFF. GU: St. George LB: University of Baltimore Law Library TA: victor.umd.edu TS: CARL LI: Select PAC from the Available Services Menu EX: Type //EXIT GU: St. George LB: University of Colorada Law Library TA: pac.carl.org TS: CARL GU: St. George LB: University of Dayton Law Library TA: udaprl.oca.udayton.edu TS: DYNIX LI: At a blank screen type LOBIN PUB02 and press RETURN. At Password? type PUBLIC and press RETURN. You will be asked to choose a terminal type. Choose AddsViewPoint, VT100 or ANSI. When you see "Welcome to the University of Dayton" screen, access the help screen by typing ? EX: Choose LOGOFF from the main menu or type Q and press RETURN. GU: St. George LB: University of Denver Law Library TA: pac.carl.org TS: CARL GU: St. George LB: University of Manitoba Law Library TA: umopac.umanitoba.ca TS: PALS LI: At the UML> prompt, type BE. EX: To exit, type $$SOFF GU: Barron LB: University of Maryland Law Library TA: victor.umd.edu LI: Select PAC from the Available Services Menu. Select 5 for VT100 terminal type. Press RETURN twice. EX: To exit, type //EXIT. GU: Barron LB: University of Maryland at Baltimore Law Library TA: victor.umd.edu TS: CARL LI: Select PAC from the Available Services menu. EX: Type //EXIT GU: St. George LB: University of Michigan Law Library TA: lexcalibur.lib.law.umich.edu TS: Innopac LI: At the login: prompt, type um-lex. Enter v for VT100 terminal emulation. Enter Y to confirm. EX: To exit, type D at the main menu. GU: Barron LB: University of Nebraska - Lincoln Law Library TA: unllib.unl.edu TS: Innopac LI: At login type: library (lower case letters only). EX: Type D at the main menu. GU: St. George LB: University of North Dakota Law Library TA: msusgw.umn.edu TS: PALS LI: At the "enter destination" prompt, type PALS. LW: At the MUS> prompt, type SET HOST ODN. Insert UNE between the search command and the search argument. EX: AT the ODN> prompt, type SET HOST LOCAL. Then at the MUS> prompt, type END. LB: University of Pennsylvania Law Library TA: lola.law.upenn.edu TS: Innopac LI: At the login prompt, type lola. Enter v for VT100 terminal emulation. Enter Y to confirm. EX: To exit, type D on the main menu. GU: Barron LB: University of Pittsburgh Law Library TA: gate.cis.pitt.edu TS: NOTIS LI: At the Service: prompt, type PITTCAT and press RETURN. At the Select: prompt, select the type of terminal you are using. GU: St. George LB: University of South Dakota Law Library TA: msusgw.umn.edu TS: PALS LI: At the "enter destination" prompt, enter PALS. LW: At the MUS> prompt, type SET HOST SDN and hit enter. Insert SDL between the search command and the search argument. EX: At the SDN> or SDL> prompt, type SET HOST LOCAL. Then at the MUS> prompt, type END. LB: University of Tulsa Law Library TA: bull.utulsa.edu LI: At the request to logon, type in upper case letters LIAS.TU. You will be asked to identify your user category and hardware. GU: St. George LB: University of Virginia Law Library TA: ublan.acc.virginia.edu TS: Innopac LI: Press RETURN until >> prompt appears. Type CONNECT LAW at the >> prompt. Enter V for VT100 emulation. Enter Y to confirm. EX: Enter D from the main menu. At the >> prompt, enter QUIT. GU: Barron LB: Washington and Lee Law Library TA: iii.library.wlu.edu TS: Innopac LI: At the login prompt, type LIBRARY LW: limit location to LAW EX: Enter D at the main menu. GU: Barron ** Forwarded from the Internet: >From: rlm@hammer.dr.att.com (131PA0000-MesenbrinkB(DR9175)243) Organization: AT&T Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: NWO, Federal Reserve & class action suit Keywords: NWO, banks, claims, federal reserve Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 20:12:40 GMT Lines: 150 I recently attended a couple of the meetings about claims that can be filed against the US government. I found out about this from Robert Reinhardt's postings. He encouraged me to post my story here. And I suppose I should state that all I am doing here is reporting my experiences so that others can be informed. I am not responsible in any way for actions taken as a result of this posting. The first meeting was sponsored by Gary Whitman, one of a growing number of claims writers on October 14. He holds these meetings twice a week. His organization is called American Freedom Resources. Gary and Jim Breen explained how our government has been manipulated by large banking interests since the early days. That the banks have been in control since 1913 when the Federal Reserve was formed, IRS was formed, and the American Bar Association was formed. Those three events have lead to the current situation with our economy and government in general. But all that is changing. They claimed that on October 13, CSPAN showed Alan Greenspan saying that the Federal Reserve was being audited (the first time in history). They said that on Mar 17, the IRS commisioner told the speaker of the house that the IRS was "in chapter 11." I could not find this in the Congressional Record, but if I had known the name of the IRS commissioner I could have used the index. I didn't try to find the Greenspan statement. Printed material from this group said that Greenspan had attempted suicide - obviously questionable. Other claims that they made: Banks fraudulently collected huge amounts of money in the past 80 years. Money was sent out of the country. Before 1976, income taxes went directly to the treasury, now they go to the federal reserve. Other fraudulent means were used to take money. Credit Life insurance required for some loans was actually default loan insurance. If a loan defaulted, the bank collected the insurance and claimed the property too. Banks are now being forced to conform to new banking regulations that require them to have gold behind all their money. If they don't conform they are being closed. On October 8, five banks were taken over by the US treasury.(I have not confirmed that fact and would be interested in hearing if anyone saw something on this.) The original 13th amendment would have prohibited those holding titles of nobility from holding elected office. Members of the bar are entitled to use "Esquire" and hence would not be eligible for office. This amendment was ratified but that fact was lost / covered up in the confusion of the Civil War. The Supreme Court has secretly reinstated this amendment this year and will publicly announce it on November 13. They then discussed the case and the resulting claims for damages that can be made. More later. The second meeting was held October 15. This was a bigger group, over a hundred fifty people crammed into a small lecture hall. The sponsoring organization was "We The People". The name "Flying Eagle Resources" is also mentioned frequently. This meeting opened with a pledge of allegience and prayer as did the first. Norman Tuttle spoke first. He claimed that the 16th amendment (IRS) was probably never ratified by more than one or possibly two states. He claimed that in 1982 when a constitution of the District of Columbia was established, it became the constitution of the US. He said that only 22% of US currency is in this country. He said that we were very, very close to losing our freedom to the New World Order at the end of 1992. And then there was this incredible claim: In 1992, airline pilots reported seeing huge bases/camps appearing across the country. It was discovered that they held UN troops! There were five camps, one in Alaska capable of holding 2 million people, one in Oklahoma and one in Nevada and two in the northeast. They were eventually to be concentration camps. The joint chiefs of staff forced the troops out. They made the three presidential candidates sign a document, after which Bush never again used the words "New World Order". A delta force returned trillions (800?) of dollars from foreign banks. Foreign governments agreed to this in exchange for forgiveness of debts owed to us. Joe Mentlick spoke next. He discussed the situation with the class action law suit against the government. It seems that a bunch of foreclosed upon farmers and businesspeople and patriots are using the system to bring itself down. They say that it is all settled now, and the people won. People are entitled to make a claim. That includes you. The claims are for incredible amounts of money. For example, they state that even a newborn is entitled to $8.25 million. Every loan since 1933 can be claimed at face value plus principal and interest paid. So a mortgage for $100,000 that was refinanced once would result in a claim for $200,000 for the original mortgage plus interest paid and $100,000 for the second mortgage plus principal and interest. Not only do you claim your own loans but also those of your parents. But that's just pocket change. You can claim $5 million for death in the family since that was probably the result of financial stress. $5 million if you don't have a four year degree. And it goes on. The people themselves seem credible. They seem like honest people who have been in trouble financially. Some are tax protesters. They seem like people just trying to get the word out. But, their story seems incredible. But they don't really have any proof. Just items out of the newpaper and TV that they speak of, and anonymous statements from parties involved. And they talk about the gag order on the class action law suit which limits what they can say and what we can find out. For example, the court records are sealed. It would sure be nice to be able to go to the court house here in Denver and check some of this out. Also, their stories don't totally agree with one another. The two meetings presented slightly differing views on how to figure claims. Information on the video that I have contradict with these meetings as well. It seems like when you file a claim, there is no way of knowing whether the forms are filled out correctly, or whether the claim forms got filed. There is no status report. Supposedly, the next thing that happens is you get paid. And that won't happen until the money and banks are backed by gold. There is no date, but they say that it is happening now. They claim that the matter is all settled, that all claims will be paid %100. But I am not convinced. On the other hand, they ask $300 for fees to file a claim. It takes an hour or so to go through the paper work with them. They hold all these meetings, three a week here in Denver. They have to pay for offices and meeting rooms and phone lines. So $300 for a claim doesn't seem unreasonable and I can see where a portion of it goes. If this is a scam, they are not making much money in my opinion, especially with so many involved. So would you pay $300 in hopes of receiving millions? You could treat it like a $300 lottery ticket. In any case, we can hope that at least the government and banks are getting straightened out. And at the very least, discussion of this conspiracy is being spread even further. Bob Mesenbrink Denver, CO -- [Gyro Gearloose forwarded me the following piece from Libernet Digest.] >From owner-libernet-d@Dartmouth.EDU Tue Oct 26 06:20:03 1993 From: gorney@tidalwave.med.ge.com (Felix Gorney Mfg 4-6983) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 93 03:54:59 CDT To: libernet-d@Dartmouth.EDU Subject: Liberty Amendment Full text of the Liberty Amendment, as introduced in Congress as H.J. Res. 23: Section 1. The Government of the United States shall not engage in any business, professional, commercial, financial, or industrial enterprise, except as specified in the constitution. Section 2. The Constitution, or laws of any state, or the laws of the United States shall not be subject to the terms of any foreign or domestic agreement which would abrogate this amendment. Section 3. The activities of the United States government which violate the intent and purpose of this amendment, shall within the peiod of three years from the date of the ratification of this amendment, be liquidated, and the properties and facilities affected shall be sold. Section 4. Three years after the ratification of this amendment, the sixteenth article of amendments to the constitution of the United States shall stand repealed and thereafter Congress shall not levy taxes on personal incomes, estates and/or gifts. The legislatures of these nine states have passed resolutions requesting Congress to send the Liberty Amendment out for ratification: 1. Wyoming 5. Georgia 2. Texas 6. South Carolina 3. Nevada 7. Mississippi 4. Louisiana 8. Arizona 9. Indiana I was in error to report in a previous posting that the Liberty Amendment had been ratified by nine states. As you can see, those states requested that the Amendment be sent out to the states for ratification. Petitions are being circulated in support of this resolution. You can obtain these, and/or send them to the following address. They will also be very happy to receive donations. Yes on 23 / Liberty Amendment Box 2386 El Cajon, CA 92021 (619) 579 - 8500 This Proposed amendment is short, and to the point. I particularly like section 1. This would outlaw government corporations, a neat little device used by our govt. to circumvent the Constitution, and have us "voluntarily" give up our rights. It is these unseen fraudulant contracts, which we have supposedly agreed to, which make us liable to pay income taxes in the first place. As you can see, this proposed amendment has covered all bases. Felix -- [I don't necessarily agree with the seeming tone of "no cause for alarm" here, but the legal reasoning is sound. Despite appearances, we do still live under the rule of law, and will unless there is widespread violence/destruction. As long as the courts exist, a knowledgable pro se should be able to come out a winner, each and every time.] >From: cosell@world.std.com (Bernie Cosell) Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers Subject: Martial law Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 03:55:57 GMT Lines: 64 Well, given the underwhelming response to my inquiry, I went and did the unexpected: I tried to look up some info on martial law. I realize that probably nobody but me cares about this kind of detail, but such is life... What I discovered is that there are _two_ notions that get bundled under the term 'martial law'. One involves the suspension of civil rights and the replacement of the Article III court system with a military court [I think that this latter part is really the hallmark of this sort of martial law]; the other involves Executive action to deploy troops for matters of civilian law enforcement. The doomsayers [e.g., consider the recent thread stemming from the request of the mayor of DC for National Guard help] confuse the two and assume that an instance of the latter implies the imminent imposition of the former. NOT TRUE. _real_ martial law is a very restricted matter. I guess there is a bit of a logical conundrum at play: if Congress were to pass an act declaring martial law, such an act would presumably disempower the Supreme Court, and so they wouldn't be in a position to review the law and declare it unconstitutional. On the other hand, I happened to recently rereading Marbury v Madison and it is clear that the SC would _not_ take such an end-run to their review powers lightly... dunno quite what they could do but it is for-sure that the SC, and, I would certainly hope, the American populace, would not take lightly having the Congress just be able to void the Constitution by passing a law to that effect. But what *can* Congress do about this sort of martial law then? This is fairly clear, I think: the military is allowed to impose military law *only* in a theatre of military operations. Basically, the SC's position is that if there is sufficient order for the civilian court system to be functioning, then military courts *cannot* be imposed [Ex Parte Milligan (1866); reaffirmed in Duncan v Kahanamoku (1946). What about the other type of 'martial law'? Well, that's quite a different matter: the President *can* order the "Army and Navy of the United States and ... the Militia of the several States" to intercede in domestic matters. BUT: that has [so far] *only* been used to quell domestic disorder _or_ to enforce the law. [The first instance was by President Washington, who used state militias to quell the Whiskey Rebellion; we're all familiar with other ones: LBJ sending troops into Alabama, Kennedy sent troops to Mississippi]. But in these cases, there's no instance that I've been able to dig up info in which the troops so-called-up were used for extra-Constitutional activities --- just enforcement and peace-restoring matters. So I think that the alarmists are really offbase here --- I had suspected so, but my research, scanty though it was, confirmed my suspicions: _real_ martial law is a very serious matter and would only really be a consideration in a true theatre of war [and no, the "War on Drugs" doesn't count, no matter what the rhetoric you hear]. Simple deployment of militia/federaltroops is not really the same thing at all, and in any event such deployments only occur in *support* of the Constitution, not in _defiance_ of it. /Bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell cosell@world.std.com Fantasy Farm Fibers, Pearisburg, VA (703) 921-2358 [This last one is also from Libernet Digest. I guess it should be categorized in the "Things Could Always Be Worse" Department...] >Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1993 00:51:55 -0700 (MST) From: bwaldrop@xmission.com (Bwaldrop) Subject: Today in Russia and Eastern Europe. . . To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU Ukraine and Russia are getting rather hysterical at each other over Ukraine's intransigence on the subject of handing over its nuclear weapons to the Russians. There are rumors (denied by Ukraine) that Ukraine is developing a capability to assert operational control, including targeting and launch, of the nuclear weapons on its territory, and/or attempting to develop some kind of radiological weapon from the nuclear materials in the warheads. In lovely Yugoslavia, the November Yugoslavian inflation rate was. . . 20,190%!!!!!!!!!!!! That is an hourly rate of .7%, a daily rate of 18.7% and at this rate will be an annual inflation factor of 286 billion percent. Economists say this is approaching the level of inflation in post-World War I Germany. A new $500 million dinar note has just been issued, which exchanges for about $6.00 US. According to the Russian government, the minimum wage is 7,740 rubles/month; minimum cost of living is 40,000 rubles/month. . . but the average wage is 100,000 rubles/month. The Russian government has just announced distribution of 1.5 trillion rubles to the military, agriculture, coal industry, and "northern regions". They adjusted their projected state income upwards by 1.5 trillion to cover the expenditure, but did not identify the source of the new revenue (can you say "printing press", I knew you could). Meanwhile, Ukraine, Moldova, the Baltic republics, and other "energy importers" in the region are suffering regular brown-outs and long power outages due to inability to pay for Russian electricity and natural gas purchases (they'd rather sell those commodities to western Europe, which pays with hard currency). Governments in the region are complaining the unattended border posts are being torn apart for (apparently) use as wood fuel, and widespread clear cutting of forests is reported due to the necessity for winter fuel. (Authorities are "mystified", however, as to why the "vandals" are also stealing the barbed wire from the border posts. . .) And finally. . . the Russian Army is reinstituting ethnic formations of Cossacks, organized under traditional tribal leaders, with a distinctive parade uniform (that's what the article said). They will be posted to "troubled border regions". Egads. . . "Alongside Night" comes to life before our very eyes. ** >From owner-cypherpunks@toad.com Thu Nov 25 00:28:59 1993 From: Jim Hart Subject: Tax Havens on the Net Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1993 00:09:49 -40962758 (CST) --------------------- Tax Havens on the Net --------------------- compiled by James R. Hart sources: Internet Connectivity List -- Larry Landweber, U.Wisc. ftp.cs.wisc.edu ../connectivity_table Version 9, August 1993 Hoyt L. Barber, _Tax Havens_, McGraw-Hill 1993 Codes used to indicate sites in each country with access to the Global Multiprotocol Open Internet: BITNET b: minimal, one to five domestic BITNET sites B: widespread, more than five domestic BITNET sites IP INTERNET I: = operational, accesible from entire IP Internet i: = operational, not accesible via the NSFNET backbone UUCP u: minimal, one to five domestic UUCP sites U: widespread, more than five domestic UUCP sites FIDONET f: minimal, one to five domestic FIDONET sites F: widespread, more than five domestic FIDONET sites OSI o: minimal, one to five domestic X.400 sites O: widespread, more than five domestic X.400 sites ------------------------ and without further ado: ------------------------ Aruba net access: ---f- languages: Papiamento, English, Dutch, Spanish currency controls: none? bank secrecy: moderate (numbered accounts not permitted) preferred legal entities: Aruba Exempt Company, NV (Dutch legal tradition, bearer shares allowed) taxes: no income tax on AEC or shareholders, no witholding of any kind tax treaties: none? Austria net access: BIOUFO language: German currency controls: ?? bank secrecy: good; numbered accounts available preferred legal entities: limited liability company, stock orporation taxes: corporate tax. no bank interest tax. 20% divident ax. tax treaties: many, OECD model, primarily personal and orporate income contact: Price Waterhouse, Austria Barbados net access: --u-- language: English currency controls: some (none for offshore banks & nsurance) preferred legal entities: company, public company, offshore bank, exempt insurance company, foreign sales corporation , international business company taxes: income tax offshore banks and international business companies 2.5%, exempt insurance companies and foreign sales corporations none tax treaties: double-tax treaties with 5 major countries (incl. U.K. & U.S.) Bermuda net access: --uf-- language: English currency controls: none for nonresidents bank secrecy: moderate preferred legal entities: local (conduct business in Bermuda, must be 60% Bermuda owned), exempt (only conducts business outside Bermuda) -- min. capitalization US$12,000 -- extensive background check on the principles taxes: no income, profit, sales, value added, witholding, or capital gains taxes tax treaties: no double-tax treaties. U.S. can be provided with tax information concerning civil & criminal tax cases Costa Rica net access: bIuf- language: Spanish currency controls: only on local currency, applies only to citizens or legal entities bank secrecy: good legal entities: individual enterprise/limited liability collective company limited partnership limited-liability company stock corporation (aka chartered company): most common taxes: 15% on dividents for some nonresident shareholders, moderate corporate income, payroll, imort, real estate taxes. Exporters exempt from most taxes. tax treaties: no double-tax treaties. Caribbean Basin Initiative exchange-of-information agreeement signed but not yet ratified (as of 1/93). Hong Kong net access: BI-F- languages: Cantonese, English currency controls: none bank secrecy: moderate? preferred legal entity: limited-liability corporation (English common law Companies Ordinance) taxes: 16.5% domestic source corporate income, 15% domestic employment wages, 15% on domestic property rental income tax treaties: no double-tax agreements n.b.: treaty to return Hong Kong to Communist China in 1997 Ireland net access: BIUFO language: English currency controls: none? bank secrecy: moderate? preferred legal entity: noresident company (private corporation w/limited liability, must conduct operations outside Ireland) taxes: only on Irish operations tax treaties: many double-tax treaties n.b.: those with Irish grandparents can obtain second citizenship Leichtenstein net access: ---f- languages: German, Alemanni currency controls: none bank secrecy: excellent preferred legal entities: allows any type found anywhere in the world (!) establishment (limited liability, unlimited duration) company limited by shares foundations and trusts taxes: none for income outside Leichtenstein. Net worth tax of 0.01% on capital and reserves (min. 1,000 Swiss francs), local resident taxes tax treaties: not party directly or indirectly to any exchange-of-information agreements double-tax treaty exists only with Austria n.b.: bankers won't assist law enforcement officials with drug, fraud, theft, or tax investigations. They might assist in money laundering and insider trading investigations, informing the customer first. Luxembourg net access: bIUFO languages: Letzeburgesh, French, German, English bank secrecy: moderate preferred legal entity: holding company taxes: holding companies pays only 10% registration fee on issued shares and 0.20% annual capital tax on issued capital bonds. tax treaties: many double-tax treaties n.b.: EC member Malta net access: --u-- languages: Maltese, English currency controls: none bank secrecy: good preferred legal entities: offshore notrading, trading, banking (overseas, subsidiary, local), insurance, trusts taxes: nontrading exempt, trading very low tax treties: many double-tax treaties n.b.: EC member Netherlands net access: BIUFO language: Dutch currency controls: ?? bank secrecy: poor preferred legal entities: private or public NV (can have bearer shares) taxes: complex, high (many loopholes for large offshore companies) tax treaties: many Panama net access: b-uFO languages: Spanish, English curency controls: none bank secrecy: good; numbered accounts permissable preferred legal entity: corporation taxes: none on income generated outside Panama tax treaties: only on shipping income Singapore net access: bIuF- languages: Malay, Mandarin, Tamil, English currency controls: none bank secrecy: moderate; numbered accounts available preferred legal entities: private limited company taxes: none on dividends, foreign deposit interest, or income derived from outside Singapore. tax treaties: many Switzerland net access: BIUFO languages: French, German, Italian, Romansch currency controls: none bank secrecy: moderate to good; numbered accounts available preferred legal entity: AG (stock company under Laws of Obligation) taxes: 3.6-9.8% worldwide income tax for operating companies, 35% witholding tax on interest and dividends tax treaties: many double-tax treaties Vanuata net access: --u-- languages: Melanesian, French, English currency controls: none bank secrecy: moderate? preferred legal entities: holding, trading, agency, mgmt. service, contracting taxes: no income or capital gains taxes tax treaties: none Western Samoa net access: --u-- languages: Samoan, English currency controls: none bank secrecy: good preferred legal entities: international company, offshore bank, insurance company taxes: none for companies under offshore acts tax treaties: none If you like having this information, let me know. Also let me know what other kinds of information you need on tax havens and net access; I'd love to be of service. If you have corrections to or additional information for the Tax Havens on the Net list, I'd be happy to add it with full attribution (or full privacy, as you prefer). To preserve your privacy, feel free to use anonymous remailers and encryption. My PGP key enclosed below. James R. Hart hart@chaos.bsu.edu -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.2 mQCNAiz0Br4AAAEEAJohFjXdkx6i2Mq6nJXdJN+VGupeKwuu1SAiRvsBK7TQ1ajY d3wEFohbwaHGn3iq7A1//koipvzE5S/C6pPxIAHFeoYOUzeI/cWmh6vsuaF3/lVm K9lx/L7PyaF8rvd4FOmLqkvs1xk/24S9ZQaBb3cjhLV571NaiPCIc3SPJUKXAAUT tCJKYW1lcyBSLiBIYXJ0IDxoYXJ0QGNoYW9zLmJzdS5lZHU+ =z2UE -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- ** [ Notice of Ownership: The following expression of ideas entitled "Random Thoughts on a New Age Order, or, The Relevance of Individual Sovereignty", is the absolute and allodial property of the author. Permission is hereby granted to any and all individuals by the author to reproduce this expression in any form, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT IT MAY ONLY BE DISTRIBUTED ENTIRELY IN UNALTERED FORM, INCLUDING THIS NOTICE OF OWNERSHIP. In all honesty, the author makes no claim of being able to enforce this condition, so go ahead and chop it up all you want. But if you do, you're a fuckin' asshole. :) ] Random Thoughts on a New Age Order, or, The Relevance of Individual Sovereignty December 1993 "If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you..." - Rudyard Kipling "This is also nothing new." - Negativland, _U2_ The latest issue of _Heterodoxy_ muses on how wonderful it must be to be a professional philosopher (they used the term "intellectual"), since it allows you to disavow any responsibility for the consequences of your actions, as well as of the ideas you advocate. A distinction, however, must be made between two types of responsibility. We all have both a legal and moral responsibility to refrain from the unprovoked use of force against others; if we fail to do so, those others have every natural right to defend themselves against our aggression. Now the mere advocacy of ideas, no matter how silly or dangerous anyone may deem them to be, clearly does not qualify as force, and thus there is no LEGAL responsibility for their expression. (Hence, the First Amendment.) So regardless of how repulsive ANY number of people may find a book, a song or a pamphlet, they have no right to use force against those responsible for its creation. The concept of responsibility in this case is a MORAL one, WHICH BY ITSELF, CANNOT CONDONE THE USE OF FORCE. But I certainly contend that this dual legal and moral responsibility of not aggressing against others must also include the solely moral one of not ADVOCATING unprovoked force aginst others. And I definitely view people who do advocate such ideas with extreme distrust and suspicion, and make every effort to interact with them as little as possible. Most folks don't even realize that two types of responsibility exist, let alone bother to distinguish between them. But to return to the subject of professional philosophers: I've noticed that quite a few of even those philosophers who would be sympathetic to the CONCEPT of sovereignty (i.e., [O|o]bjectivists) usually have never heard of even the most rudimentary elements of it. Worse, once it is explained to them, many cannot grasp the idea that it is actually attainable in this day and age. Now I consider [O|o]bjectivists to be, on the whole, generally above average in terms of intelligence. And, thanks to David Kelley and the Institute for Objectivist Studies (which broke the "monopoly" on Objectivism claimed by Leonard Peikoff), many of them are even rather tolerant of behavior that they would never even consider engaging in themselves. (See David Kelley's _Truth and Tolerance_.) Given that most of them should easily be able to visualize a society in which rights were respected rather than trampled on or ignored, as well as the general level of intelligence and quick-thinking among them, I find it rather chilling that so few of them can conceive of the idea of actually claiming and defending the concept of their sovereignty in court, and even more chilling that so many are unable to conceive of how to go about their daily affairs, living their lives, once they have dissolved all contracts with any governmental agencies and defended that position. The most unfortunate aspect of all this is that [O|o]bjectivists are, in general, people who would substantially benefit from being unencumbered by such contracts; people who are resourceful and far-sighted enough to fully enjoy and exploit the status of freeman, and intelligent enough (and, to a lesser degree, polite and reasonable enough... ;) to concisely explain such status to a layman in an easily comprehensible form. (I note, with more than mild interest, that considerably more Extropians are aware of the concept, and highly more optimistic regarding it, even if they do not claim such a status at this point in their lives.) So what does the "Freedom Movement" consist of, for the most part? This may sound nasty, but so far, I've found it to be true more often than not: A bunch of racist, sexist, moronic middle-aged hicks who talk a good game, but when it comes right down to where the bear shits, don't see anything inconsistent about slapping the old lady around, beating up niggers on the weekends and wasting a lot of valuable time and energy being RELIGIOUS, for crying out loud! And I'm sure I don't need to remind you all that being religious in and of itself isn't legally OR morally wrong... but nonetheless, I consider it completely opposed to the concept of sovereignty (John Locke and most of the other natural law folk may not have, but that's because they never read James Donald's essay on it, which as always I will mail out on request). Every individual is sovereign because of their nature as a human being, because of the fact that human beings survive and flourish by use of their reasoning ability -- NOT because of any imagined (or even possibly real, but so far there's not a shred of proof) "creator". Where are the goddamned women? Where are the goddamned blacks, the Chicanos? Where are the goddamned queers and the dykes? And for that matter, where the hell are the goddamned Objectivists and Extropians? ANYONE in America today who wants to be free to go as far as they can, to better their condition as much as possible, and to be free from random violence and attacks by ANYONE, government or otherwise, should be HIGHLY interested in claiming the status of a sovereign. But it doesn't seem to matter whether a person believes that unprovoked force is just and proper or not -- BOTH sides are equally prone towards fatalism, cynicism and a general attitude of, "The hell with it. Nothing I do can possibly matter. I'll just live my life, try to stay out of their way, roll with the punches and say Yes, Massa, and maybe, if I'm lucky, I can stay alive." But we should not be interested in MERE SURVIVAL -- we need to pursue FLOURISHING. Being HAPPY. Being FREE. Anyone who spends any amount of time kvetching about their slavery, whether such a condition is self-imposed or not, or even whether such a condition is real or imagined, needs to hit the brakes and start dealing with reality. As long as someone knows WHY individuals are sovereign, and is willing to defend that concept to the last, they should be making every effort to BE sovereign. Failing that, they should be making every effort to SPREAD THE IDEA, SHARE THE INFORMATION AND KEEP THE MEME ALIVE. You only lose all right to complain when you give up. Principia Discordia said it best: "Ye have locked yerselves up in cages of fear -- and behold, do ye now complain that ye lack freedom." Force is the last line of defense -- the last resort when all others have failed. As long as there is sufficient order that the court system remains functional, defending one's sovereignty is possible. Only under the most extraordinary of circumstances such as war, massive civil unrest -- and yes, attack by government, as in the Randy Weaver and Branch Davidian incidents -- should we resort to violence. The rule of (natural) law -- NOT the law of the jungle -- is in every peaceful person's best interest. [end of expression of ideas] ** -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.3a mQCNAiuhO1QAAAEEAOuUGP0QKhow6Fao1yAZklOAoU+6sXt8978TaJYQQ+NTHMx7 zlnmG6d6LWarPgwIwyCyygEMU+2zAClde08YHOSI/zH+2rvLSaddgPcGJlf7V7+K uhu3nBJM6dhEBKY2P3UfO+CmQQemQ3Q8yR4m8HEpno1VRzUIh2QAFfmIg8VVAAUR tCpJYW4gTSBTY2hpcmFkbyA8c2NoaXJhZG9AbGFiLmNjLndtaWNoLmVkdT4= =OEDe -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----