It is the opinion of staff members that although this is an
interesting model to consider, its revenue generating strength
for the King lies in the correction of wholesale public
perception of the King being wrong and working immoral acts on
the countryside. Since a majority of Americans still do not
perceive of things being this way at the present time, this
revenue enhancement and Tax Resistance termination model is best
kept on the back shelf, for a while.2
The value in this story is the knowledge that the King's Tax
Collectors in Washington are not the intellectually lethargic
and dim-witted bureaucrats some people make them out to be.3
They are constantly polling public opinion and testing for
factual knowledge, to see what they can get away with.4 They are
brilliant and they know exactly what they are doing at all
times.5
So too, the IRS knows exactly what it is doing, just like the
King. And its present policy of justifying the tax based on a
phony hybrid composite blend of top-down universal Civil Law and
16th Amendment grounds is in place for just one reason: Because
at the present time it is to the King's financial advantage to
do so, due to baneful public IGNORANTIA JURIS. (But remember the
King propagates this erroneous justification because of the
institutionalized political banality of most Americans. Reverse
the banality and the King will very likely reverse himself). I
have a hunch that the King's reversal will be virtually
automatic when the time is right. He closely monitors public
opinion, and he is careful in his public pronouncements.6 So all
factors considered, it is unlikely that the King would not
switch public tax justification positions where it is to his own
self-enrichment financial advantage to do so.7
Just as there is deception and lies in the conveyance
justification being offered to Americans for an unreasonably
sized chunk of their wealth, month in and month out, year in and
year out without any let up in sight, so too was the Income Tax
justified on fraudulent terms by Congressmen who, just like the
King's Senior Tax Collectors today, had a pure and perfect
picture of their MAGNUM Torts of deception and lies. Yes, if you
were to believe Congressmen trying to push the 1913 INCOME TAX
ACT through Congress, the world was simply crying out,
insisting, and even strongly demanding that they be taxed,
fleeced, and thoroughly looted.8
But if that statement from George Hull is not enough to turn
your stomach, then perhaps some other previous statements,
emanating from the floor of the Congress in support of the
WILSON TARIFF ACT OF 1894 [which contained an Income Tax rider
(the Income Tax bill would not pass the Congress by itself)],
which present a flowery wonderland promised to us all, if only
we were just taxed more heavily, just damaged more intensely,
and deprived of just more wealth through one more turn of the
screws, is just strong enough to make someone choke.9
The King's policy of keeping the ratio between the Income Tax
bracket and the percentage tax demanded where it is, is because
it lies just below the threshold toleration level, although not
precisely so. The King's Agents are constantly surveying us
folks out here in the countryside to see how many of us are in
what tax bracket, so the King can reassess how much more tax
confiscation can be extracted from us without an unmanageable
revolt.10
It is the possible likelihood that this threshold toleration
level would be overpassed and broken that concerns certain
senior bureaucrats in Washington, who are wise to the practical
secondary consequences such a passing of the threshold limit
would create. The meaning of this concern is perhaps best
understood by the 1979 analogy of the oil pricing decisions made
by Saudi Arabia's Oil Minister, Sheik Admed Yamani. The Sheik's
adamant refusal to raise Saudi crude oil prices above the $40
per barrel limit in the face of such rare and unusually strong
world wide petroleum demand puzzled many observers.11
From the viewpoint of some folks, the Sheik was passing up on a
golden opportunity to cream in some extra bucks while the oil
boom lasted across those several months. To other observers of
the passing scene, the Sheik was a friend of the United States,
and was just a good, kind, caring, public welfare oriented
person who simply had the world's best interests in his heart as
he refused to raise prices any higher. But the real reason why
Sheik Yamani was trying to keep the oil prices artificially low
is the same reason why the Congress has fixed the Income
Bracket/Percentage Tax ratios for the Income Tax at their
present levels: Because raising oil prices to levels above a
threshold toleration level then equal to higher priced alcohol
would cause the universal shift to alcohol and other non-crude
oil based substitutes, and so oil would then not be purchased at
all in the future; just like more aggressive Income Tax levels
would cause folks to simply abandon taxes altogether, thus
leaving the King with nothing from these folks (as I mentioned
that some Tax Collectors have been concerned about since the
1950's). And that is the great art of pricing in business:
Keeping prices competitively high, but just below the threshold
level of rejection.12
No relationship to cost, no relationship to benefits received,
no relationship to hard intrinsic value. Just pricing based on
Enscrewment (a similar conclusion reached by others just cited
in the footnote, but they use their own proprietary language
that removes identification of the moral orientation (for good
or evil) in the actors. As for pricing within the interior of
shared monopoly cartels -- this is why sophisticated pricing
strategists know that charging the highest momentary price the
market will support is not necessarily the best thing to do for
yourself: You may win that battle under unusual circumstances,
but loose the long term war for several different secondary
reasons. And our King, with his monopoly, is no different in
either motivation or strategy. And that concern about likely
rejection by ex-Taxpayers is also the same reason why
sophisticated attorneys who work for the King know that it is
often best to drop a prosecution, SANS GENE, in a low level
Administrative or Trial setting, rather than raise the
presentation threshold level of the grievance to senior judicial
appellate forums and risk an adverse appellate opinion on appeal
that might benefit others, even if unreported.13
Like the Sub-Threshold Pricing Enscrewment Model in Commerce,
there is also a Sub-Threshold Prosecution Enscrewment Model in
effect in the corridors of Government as well, as the Judiciary
is used latently by prosecutors in ways to help enrich the
King.14
[Incidentally, the Rothschilds and their ideological mentor,
Karl Marx, have planned this impending state of affairs since
the Paris Communes of the 1800's, but their SUB ROSA political
involvement and quiet intellectual sponsorship required our
national consent through acts of own American legislatures,
which they got. (So we really did this to ourselves). And so I
am only interested in now addressing things as presently
fabricated under American Law; and since the King is now
collecting Income Taxes exclusively by contract [numerous layers
of invisible contracts difficult to see], only the content of
the contract is relevant to discuss, when a grievance under the
contract later comes up for judicial review and enforcement. And
so questions, sounding in the Tort of unfairness, as to just who
ultimately sponsored this grand scenario become largely
irrelevant, when contracts are in effect. The facts are that the
Income Tax has been around in the United States for a long time.
The American colonists had such a tax imposed on them,15 and
there was also one imposed during the Civil War under Abraham
Lincoln.16
But the distinction between those prior belief and transient AD
HOC taxing occurrences and the present permanent Income Tax is
that our contemporary Income Tax has an underlying political
objective as its primary goal: It was originally designed and
is now intended to forcibly screw, harm and damage people,
first, and then to raise revenue as a wealth transfer
instrument, second.17
Creating damages through such devices as a national Tax on
Incomes, as a tool for conquest, is very important to
international Bolsheviks, particularly since they thrive in an
atmosphere where the true seminal point of beginning of national
destruction is obscure and difficult to see; and very few folks
see the Income Tax as the great tool of destruction that it
is.18 For example, The World Bank in Washington will not make a
loan to any political jurisdiction in the world, unless that
country has enacted a national income tax at rates high enough
to satisfy the Bolsheviks. Nations rise and fall on Income
Taxes.19 And here in the United States, the State of New York,
under the evil genius of Nelson Rockefeller, enacted the highest
corporate and personal income taxes in effect, of any state,
during the 1960's and 1970's, driving a large number of
businesses and literally millions of people, to emigrate from
New York.20
Income Taxes have a history of being used to accomplish special
objectives which, by their nature, require the creation of some
incidental damages, and so Gremlins trying hard to run a country
into the ground, need generally look no farther than simply
initiating a Taxing grab on Incomes.21
Although making life difficult for INDIVIDUALS is important for
Gremlins as a source of damages, creating military engagements
and wars can be another such source of damages,22 and quiet
national economic enscrewment still another.23
[FILE CORRUPTION]
1 or astuteness of Taxpayers and their counsels. An added
consideration is the equitable rights of Taxpayers themselves.
It is of abiding importance to Taxpayers as a class that each
Taxpayer pay his proportion of the tax burden, that each Citizen
share the cost of Government in accordance with his ability to
pay. Hence, in combating both evasion and avoidance, the
Government is protecting itself and the equitable rights of all
Taxpayers. The problem is one in which small Taxpayers, in
particular, have a very definite interest. John Doe has a
taxable net income of one thousand dollars. Generally, John Doe
pays his tax thereon. If he tries to avoid he usually evades,
because he is unable to employ skilled advisors, and many of the
methods by which he might avoid are not available to him. On the
other hand, Henry Doe has a taxable net income of three thousand
dollars. He has skilled accountants and advisors to reduce this
net income and thereby minimize his tax liability. His business
and investments are, generally, of such a nature as to render
available to him many tax saving schemes. Hence, the ability to
pay frequently carries with it the ability to avoid. After all,
tax avoidance cannot be had at the dollar book counter."
- Lucious Buck in INCOME TAX EVASION AND AVOIDANCE: SOME
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS, 26 Georgetown Law Review 863, at 863
(1937).
2 At the present time, while a majority of Americans still do
not perceive of things as being structurally wrong, however,
there are many other folks who do possess inclinations of
irritation:
"In an era of heavy taxation, many taxpayers, not merely "tax
protestors," feel intense irritation at the federal tax
authorities..."
- CAMERON VS. I.R.S., 773 F.2nd 126, at 129 (1985).
3 Tax bureaucrats conduct extensive continuous statistical
research on various different methodologies of conducting the
best CRACKING that can be had for the tax collection dollar
spent. Based on technical information derived from sources
within the IRS, researcher Ann Witte, et al., developed an
economic model of tax compliance by Americans. She came to the
same conclusions that IRS statistical termites had already
arrived at long ago:
1. That the decline in tax audit rates during the 1970's may
have accounted for a substantial portion of the decline in
compliance during that period.
2. That increases in probability of tax audit and such things
as information reporting and tax withholding are likely devices
to increase tax code compliance [not very difficult to figure
out, but bureaucrats need to have it all handed to them].
3. That increases in moral ambivalence towards tax compliance
will increase tax non-compliance [not very difficult to figure
out].
The IRS divides Taxpayers into different strata of audit classes
since it believes that compliance behavior differs significantly
on the basis of level and type of income. Ann Witte constructed
a statistical analysis for homogeneity of coefficients across
the seven audit classes that her sources in the IRS would admit
existed; she used LEAST SQUARES and a generalization of the CHOW
TEST as statistical tools to come to a conclusion. That yes,
Taxpayers situated within the seven different strata of audit
classes developed by professional termites in the IRS do in fact
exhibit an amazingly similar MODUS VIVENDI to other Taxpayers in
the same class [MODUS VIVENDI means mode of living in the sense
that it is a temporary arrangement pending settlement of some
grievance]. Yes, those termites are quite proficient unknowing
Bolshevik instrumentalities at their juristic tasks of eating
out our substance [see Ann Witte in THE EFFECT OF TAX LAW AND
TAX ADMINISTRATION ON TAX COMPLIANCE; THE CASE OF THE UNITED
STATES INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX, 38 National Tax Journal 1 (March,
1985)].
4 The assessments and JUDGMENT CALLS that our King goes through
in determining how much money should stay on the farm, what
minimum amount is needed by the farmer for survival, and then
how much should be turned over to the State for his own Royal
purposes, is the same JUDGMENT CALL that Gremlins nestled in
Juristic Institutions made world wide:
"We were back to food requisitioning, only now it was called a
tax. Then there was something called `overfilling the quota.'
What did that mean? It meant that a Party secretary would go to
a collective farm and determine how much grain the collective
farmers would need for their own purposes and how much [grain]
they had to turn over the State. Often, not even the local Party
committee would determine procurements; the State itself would
set a quota for the whole district. As a result, all too
frequently, the peasants would have to turn everything over they
produced -- literally everything! Naturally, since they
received no compensation whatsoever for their work, they lost
interest in the collective farm and concentrated instead on
their private plots to feed their families."
- Nikita Khrushchev in his memoirs KHRUSHCHEV REMEMBERS: THE
LAST TESTAMENT, page 108 [Little Brown, Boston (1974);
translated by Strobe Talbott].
The reason why Gremlins world wide are continually confronted
with the same nagging taxation question over and over again, is
because they are dealing with DIRECT taxes operating largely on
Citizenship Contracts, and so there is inherently always going
to be tension, friction, and confrontations, as DIRECT TAXES by
their nature require strict administrative compliance, which is
fundamentally out of harmony with the HAPPY GO LUCKY nonchalant
ambivalence many folks manifest. And there will also be
correlative factual assessments being made by Government as to
just what the permissible levels of tolerable enscrewment are,
that can be sustained by the peasantry before EN MASSE rejection
gets out of hand. By the nature of DIRECT taxes, for the
reciprocal compensation demanded, there never is any
relationship to juristic benefits offered, nor any relationship
between income extracted from people and Governmental needs --
and so what we are left with is just an extraction formula
designed to maximize Crown enrichment.
5 And they also know exactly what they are doing when the go
around the countryside looking for some Tax Protesting giblets
to crack:
"SENATOR SMOOTHERS: I have been concerned, Mr. Alexander,
[Director of the IRS in the mid 1970's], and the committee has
received information regarding how the IRS deals with its
enemies, if you will, particularly the tax protestor groups. We
have information indicating that there has been an effort made
to infiltrate these groups, if you will, primarily based on
their anti-IRS activities, including such things as [their]
efforts at physical destruction [in] your [IRS offices and the
filing of reams of blank returns. Is it your view that IRS
investigators should be used in this capacity, or is this a
matter better handled by other investigative agencies, like the
FBI?
"MR. ALEXANDER: Mr. Smoothers, there have been instances where
the use of the techniques that you described would be necessary.
Those instances are few indeed. I think that the IRS has a
responsibility to see to it that those who attempt to defeat tax
administration and tax enforcement do not succeed. And,
accordingly, as to tax resisters, we have an interest, and
shall, I think, maintain an interest in making their efforts
fail. But we also have a duty in the fulfillment of this limited
goal to live up to constitutional principles and the law,
because we cannot enforce the law properly by violating the law
[a lie, but a CRACKER is not about to tell the Congress anything
else]. ...Tax protestors are indirectly related to tax
administration, in that those who preach resistance to tax laws
are likely to practice resistance as well."
- HEARINGS TO STUDY GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS WITH RESPECT TO
INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION, 94th Congress, First Session, Volume 3
["Internal Revenue Service"], page 7; United States Senate
(October 2, 1975).
A Gremlin once had a few words to say about EXECUTIVE POWER,
such as that power wielded by Presidents and his administrative
assistants:
"Executive power combines policy-making with the direction of
policy execution. It is this combination that endows the
executive organ in the governmental structure with its crucial
functional importance and vests it, or rather the persons who
symbolize or control it, with the mystique normally surrounding
a head of State or a monarch. In the minds of the people, a
president, a king, or even a premier... plays the role of
leader, much in the tradition of the family head, the village
elder, or the tribal chief.
"Through the ages, society has depended on the chief executives
for a sense of direction, and they have stood at the apex of the
social and political hierarchy whenever necessity has forced men
to band together. Executive power may, in fact, be the oldest
and the most necessary social institution in the world. It has
taken many forms, has been established through diverse channels
ranging from birth to purposely perpetrated death, and has been
invested with different ranges of authority at various places
and times and in response to varying requirements...
"The [bureaucratic] executive... is relatively unhindered in
the exercise of [this] power... Formal restraints, such as legal
injunctions, are also either absent or circumvented, while
informal restraints [such as the press] are somewhat more
elastic in the assertion of their claims against the executive."
- Zbigniew Brzezinski in IDEOLOGY AND POWER IN SOVIET POLITICS,
at 13 [Fredrick Praeger Publisher, New York (1962)].
Gremlins know that folks will go right ahead and improvidently
place an aura of mystique about the nominees they sponsor into
visible executive positions in Juristic Institutions, such as
Presidents and Members of his Cabinet -- while the real action
[the level where the bureaucracy is interfacing with the public,
the level where damages are being created), is taking place at a
lower level -- an invisible bureaucratic level. And Gremlins are
also cognizant of the fact that formal legal restraints, such as
those residing in the Constitution, are in fact circumvented, as
Mr. Alexander admitted; and third parties the public seems to
trust, like the Press, are noted for their acquiescence of
mischief through their silence. Always remember that Gremlins
merely take advantage of what is handed to them, and will back
off when the knife encounters a bone instead of more flesh; this
is a Principle pronounced over and over again in ecclesiastical
settings, as Lucifer is identified as a clever adversary
specializing in taking prime advantages of weaknesses. Patriots
assigning a degree of trust in the Constitutional compliance
inclinations of lower strata bureaucratic underlings, by virtue
of the stature possessed by a President sponsored by Gremlins,
are in error; as Gremlin Brzezinski pointed out, when the house
is under Gremlin management, such as the United States is today,
the policy maker is largely aloof from the administrative
termite.
6 It is my hunch that a contributing inducement element to the
King's deceptive deflection of the justification for the Income
Tax, away from our Father's Common Law on Contracts and towards
the phony 16th Amendment, is likely to also indicate the
presence of a morbid intellectual disorder within the King's
Senior Tax Collectors in Washington: A disorder of deception.
Consider the composite conclusions that the psychological
fantasy lie, of which Senior Tax Collectors manifest with the
deception, is a sign of intellectual morbidity when strongly
developed, and additionally, is a symptom of severe pathology
[see Helene Deustch and Paul Roazen, ON THE PATHOLOGICAL LIE, in
the Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, July,
1982, pages 369 to 386]. Another article which explores the
clinical need for the operant reconditioning of lie therapies to
correct structural deception disorders in the MODUS OPERANDI of
people is by Robert Langs, [writing in the INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
OF PSYCHOANALYTIC PSYCHOTHERAPY, at pages 3 to 341 (1980-1981)],
where he discusses psychotherapeutic treatment modalities on the
treatment of deception disorders, especially psychoanalysis and
psychoanalytically oriented psychotherapy. Boy, that sounds like
just the right medicine for the King's Senior Tax Collectors.
7 American Jurisprudence, like Nature and society, is stratified
into different statuses. And people and objects situated within
those different strata (statuses) have different rights,
motivations, and objectives. I am not convinced that there are
not other secondary elements coming into focus when coming to
grips with this psychological analysis of the King's Tax
Collectors and their deception regarding the legal validity and
general tax relevancy of the 16th Amendment. For an interesting
discussion on the intricacies of deviant behavior manifested in
people by virtue of the elevated status they hold, see SOCIAL
STRATIFICATION AND DEVIANT BEHAVIOR by John Hewitt [published by
Random House (1970)]. Mr. Hewitt talks about the empirical
connections between deviancy in MODUS OPERANDI and
self-perceived elevated status, when he discusses the
"Analytical Models of Social Stratification and Deviant
Behavior."
8 "During recent years there has been a general agitation and
demand in almost every state in the union and in almost every
country in the world for intelligent, fair, and practical
reforms and readjustments of their tax systems to the end that
every citizen may be required to contribute to the wants of the
Government in proportion to the revenue he enjoys under its
protection. To this end the doctrine of equality of sacrifice or
ability to pay is being universally invoked."
- Representative George Hull, on the floor of the House of
Representatives in 1913; as quoted by Thomas Lyons in INCOME
TAXES ["Modern American Law Lecture"], page 14 (The Blackstone
Institute, Chicago, 1920).
9 Speaking of the Income Tax provision of the WILSON TARIFF
BILL, a Congressman once had a few flowery words to say:
"The passage of the [Wilson] bill will mark the dawn of a
brighter day, with more sunshine, more of the songs of birds,
more of that sweetest music, the laughter of children, well fed,
well clothed, well housed. Can we doubt that in the bright,
happier days to come, good, even-handed Democracy shall be
triumphant? God hasten the era of equality in taxation and in
opportunity. And God prosper the Wilson bill, first leaf in the
book of reform in taxation, the promise of a brightening future
for those whose genius and labor create the wealth of the land,
and whose courage and patriotism are the only sure bulwark and
defense of the Republic."
- Representative David DeArmond, of Missouri (1894); [as quoted
by Frank Chodorov in THE INCOME TAX, page 41 (Devin-Adair, New
York 1954)].
Always remember that David DeArmond was sent to Washington from
country folks in Missouri -- ordinary Citizens just like us all,
so to a large extent, he merely replicated the indifferent will
of his Constituents who actually admired a man of his pathetic
calibre; so before snickering at the clever Rothschilds, we need
to realize that we did this to ourselves. Although it is popular
to snicker at Congressmen, Congressmen reflect somewhat fairly
the judgment calibre of their Constituents, and so now the
correct remedy lies not by slothing off responsibility by
pointing to someone else and blaming them, and not by the
selective political criticism of the world's Gremlins (exemplary
of Birchers and LaRouchies), but rather by a national internal
self-examination that originates, like everything else,
individually:
"When politicians discover that the people will turn out in
mass to the primaries, their hope of controlling delegates in
their own interest will disappear; and whenever political
conventions discover that the people will carefully discriminate
in the selection of officers, choosing only those who live
within the Law and who are pledged to support it -- those whose
lives and characters are above reproach -- then will political
parties fear to put up for election men who are unworthy. If the
people will only exercise their privileges as American Citizens,
they will find in their own hands the power to correct our
present evils."
- Melvin J. Ballard in IMPROVEMENT ERA ["The Political
Responsibility of Latter-day Saints"], at 464 [Desert Book, Salt
Lake City (1954)].
10 A Gremlin once made a Statement that is a good representation
as to how Gremlins think in taxation areas:
"The problem of the Government is to fix rates which will bring
in a maximum amount of revenue to the Treasury and at the same
time bear not too heavily on the taxpayer or on business
enterprises. A sound tax policy must take into consideration
three factors. It must produce sufficient revenue for the
Government; it must lessen, so far as possible, the burden of
taxation on those least able to bear it; and it must also remove
those influences which might retard the continued steady
development of business and industry on which, in the last
analysis, so much of our prosperity depends."
- Gremlin Andrew Mellon in TAXATION: THE PEOPLE'S BUSINESS, at
9 [MacMillian Company, New York (1924)].
Notice what is important to Gremlins: Maximum revenue
generation for the Government; and maximum taxation from the
public that can be tolerated, individually and commercially.
Gremlins do not concern themselves with such pesky little
nuisance questions as to whether the Government really has any
good cause to spend the money on in the first place; Gremlins do
not concern themselves with the correlative damages experienced
by folks as important resources are preemptively grabbed from
them resulting in a deprivation of minimal material needs to
support a family. Gremlins do not want you and I to have
prosperity, they want the Government to have the prosperity, so
that once Government has got the money, then they can spend it.
11 Saudi Arabia accomplished its objective of restraining other
oil producers by increasing their oil production to maximum
capacity, while refusing to raise its own price. See numerous
articles in the WALL STREET JOURNAL discussing the Saudi Arabian
crude oil pricing freeze while maximizing their own oil
production to physical limits:
- July 3, 1979 ["Saudi Arabia Is Said To Plan An Increase In
Its Oil Production"], page 3;
- July 10, 1979 ["President Confirms Saudi Move To Boost Oil
Output Sharply"], page 2 ("...Saudi production should have a
moderating influence on world oil prices...", id., at page 2);
- September 27, 1979 ["Saudis Allowing Higher Oil Level To
Remain In `79"], page 3;
- November 29, 1979 ["Collection of Confusions" poorly written
Editorial], page 2 (Saudi perspective on oil pricing);
- December 6, 1979 ["Saudi Arabia Probably Couldn't Bail Out
Oil Consumers If Output In Iran Collapsed"], page 2 (Saudi at
maximum oil capacity);
- December 13, 1979 ["Saudi Arabia Oil-Producing Capacity Is Up
To Almost 11 Million Barrels a Day"], page 3;
- October 27, 1980 ["How Energy Boss Met Secretly With Yamani
On Untimely Oil Deal"], page 1 (Saudi oil output raised, id., at
page 23).
12 For recent commentary of this idea expressing similar
conclusions in different words, and based on different
reasoning, see:
1. Jon Harkness in OPEC, RATIONALITY AND THE MACROECONOMY, 7
Journal of Macroeconomics at 567 (Fall, 1985); the author
discusses a simple two nation macromodel with OPEC exploiting
the vertical total supply curve of an open economy. Has
interesting theories intellectuals would like.
2. Marie Paule Donsimoni in STABLE HETEROGENEOUS CARTELS, 3
International Journal of Industrial Organizations, at 451
(December, 1985); originates from the Netherlands. The author
discusses how cartels constrict and enlarge their supply of
product as demand changes, in order to maintain high prices and
prevent cartel members from having an incentive to leave the
cartel. Under this model assumption, cartels composed of
multiple types of firms can prosper and enhance revenue with
greater efficiency than firms can individually outside of the
cartel. Once established, cartels act like price leaders in an
industry, with the uniqueness, size, and composition of cartels
changing according to market demand.
3. M.A. Adelman in WESTERN HEMISPHERE PERSPECTIVES: OIL AND
NATURAL GAS, 3 Contemporary Policy Issues, at 3 (Summer, 1985).
The author discusses several competing and conflicting
incentives to change pricing on oil, as they continuously seek
to shift that elusive equilibrium to favor themselves. The
individual market roles and shared concerns of Argentina,
Canada, Ecuador and Mexico are discussed.
4. Claudio Loderer in A TEST OF THE OPEC CARTEL HYPOTHESIS:
1974-1983 in 40 Journal of Finance, at 991 (July, 1985).
Discusses oil pricing over the last ten years, and addresses the
hypothetical question as to whether or not the collusive
policies of OPEC really had that much of an effect on oil
prices. Very scholarly, with daily spot oil prices from 1973 to
1983, equations, tables and other instruments for intellectuals
to exercise with.
5. Frank Bass and Ram Rao in COMPETITION, STRATEGY, AND PRICE
DYNAMICS; A THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION, 22 Journal
of Marketing Research, at 283 (August, 1985). Discusses the
pricing impacts of new competition on industries dominated not
by cartels, but by oligopolies. The authors develop a model
reflecting some sensitivity resulting from demand diffusion,
saturation, and cost reductions through growth in market share
and accumulated experience. Price and market share dynamics are
examined for the presence of a possibly competitive oligopoly;
the authors analyze the pricing geometries of semiconductor
manufacturing companies and conclude that the growth rate of the
demand pricing elasticity in integrated circuits and correlated
semiconductor products contributes significantly to pricing
geometries (called PATHS by the authors) across different
products. With graphs and equations, this is an intellectual's
delight.
6. K. Sridhar Moorthy in USING GAME THEORY TO MODEL
COMPETITION, 22 Journal of Marketing Research, at 262 (August,
1985). The author presents the idea that competition springs
from interdependence in effect between competitors, such that
actions taken by one firm will have impact and create both
opportunities and impediments on its competitors. The author
creates a GAME THEORY, whereby decision makers can model
prospective reactions by competitors on what it does.
Applications are made into:
(a) Product and price competition;
(b) Price wars;
(c) The product quality/price relationship
(d) Competitive bidding competition.
7. Jehoshua Eliasberg in ANALYTICAL MODELS OF COMPETITION WITH
IMPLICATIONS FOR MARKETING: ISSUES, FINDINGS, AND OUTLOOK, 22
Journal of Marketing Research, at 237 (August, 1985). The author
uses oligopolies to discuss how marketing managers are
increasingly realizing the need to analyze competition in
formulating strategic marketing plans. New market entrants and
product line/distribution decisions are discussed in this
fellow's pricing models.
8. Robert T. Mason and David Easley in PREYING FOR TIME, 33
Journal of Industrial Economics, at 445 (June, 1985). In an
interesting article, the authors discuss the use of predatory
pricing models as a common everyday tool of business conquest.
The authors state that contrary to common view, such predatory
practices do not necessarily require the elimination of new
competitors [something that John Rockefeller would have
accomplished back in the 1800's out of the barrel of a gun and
with the assistance of some dynamite]; but that other business
behavior often largely accomplishes the same thing. With charts
and equations.
9. P.A. Geroski et al in OLIGOPOLY, COMPETITION AND WELFARE:
SOME RECENT DEVELOPMENTS, 33 Journal of Industrial Economics, at
page 369 (June, 1985); journal originates out of the United
Kingdom. The authors review recent literature on oligopolies;
they err slightly when trying to define just what creates
monopolies, but are correct when they take the obvious position
that some monopolies have a protracted life about them over long
periods of time.
10. Daniel Seligman in OPEC DISCOVERS THE PERILS OF PRICE
FIXING, 112 Fortune Magazine, at 51 (July 22, 1985). The author
views OPEC as collapsing in ways predicted by classical theorems
of the cartel theory of economics, for many different reasons.
Factually defective in some aspects, but it is interesting light
reading.
11. John Picinich in WHY OPEC IS STILL THE KEY TO LONG TERM OIL
PRICES, 14 Futures; The Magazine of Commodities & Options, at 52
(May, 1985). This author argues that OPEC is not on the
threshold of collapse, and that with time and huge oil reserves
on its side, OPEC will likely dominate oil markets again within
a decade. Presents a good summary history of OPEC pricing in
general, and of the reduction in crude oil demand that gained
momentum in 1983; here in 1985 OPEC is alive but has lost the
standing ability to call the shots like they used to.
12. William H. Miller in NO DEATHWATCH FOR OPEC, 225 Industry
Week, at 40 (May 27, 1985). Openly discusses the view of others
that OPEC will collapse, and then offers his own views that OPEC
is likely to get stronger in the future, due to a combination of
listed reasons. He cites the opinions of oil analysts that
United States oil production will fall synchronous with a rise
in demand, and the result will be that OPEC will hold the upper
hand once again.
Those 12 articles are a representative profiling sample of the
multiplicity of recently appearing divergent views floating
around on just one subject matter (business cartels and their
functional similitudes, and pricing), that are the opinions of
INTELLECTUALS -- as they go about their work reading,
contemplating, writing their own opinions, putting in an honest
day's work generating new theorems like they do. Sometimes they
are correct, sometimes they are in error, but the one
denominator threading its way through all 12 articles was an
omission of some additional factual information here and there
-- the effect of which would have been to both support and to
countermand and negate the theorems presented. And as we change
settings over to where the imps in the major media make their
statements on television and in newspapers, they too are in
error as frequently as INTELLECTUALS are, as a composite blend
of lack of factual knowledge commingled with recurring overtones
of philosophical bias and Gremlin sponsored malice.
13 The decision on whether or not to continue a prosecution at
the appellate level is the same exercise of discretion that
prosecutors exercise when the criminal defendant is initially
charged with his crimes:
"The discretionary power... in determining whether a
prosecution shall be commenced or maintained [on Appeal] may
well depend upon matters of policy wholly apart from any
question of PROBABLE CAUSE."
- UNITED STATES VS. COX, 342 F.2nd 167, at 171 (1965).
Private commentators as well have written on the discretion
given to prosecuting attorneys on the decision when to drop a
case in whole or in part, although they do not have the judgment
to see what a marvelous administrative toll PROSECUTOR'S
DISCRETION is to keep potentially irritating cases out of
appellate forums, where even unreported Opinions might spell
trouble for the King in the future:
"Many persons who are in fact guilty of a crime and who could
be convicted are either not charged at all, are charged with a
less serious offense or a smaller number of offenses than the
evidence would support, or are subjected to informal control
processes which do not require formal accusation. Although some
decisions not to charge or not to charge fully for reasons
unconnected with probability of guilt are made by the police,
the primary concern here is with those [decisions that are] made
by the prosecutor. With rare exceptions, legislatures and
appellate judges officially approve of this allocation of power
to prosecutors, but the precise issue is infrequently confronted
in appellate litigation and is only occasionally dealt with
specifically in statutes."
- Frank Miller in THE DECISION TO CHARGE A SUSPECT WITH A CRIME
["Charging Discretion"], page 154 [Little Brown, Boston (1969)].
For commentary on the DOCTRINE OF PROSECUTOR'S DISCRETION, see:
- Klein in THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S DISCRETION NOT TO PROSECUTE,
32 Los Angeles Bar Bulletin 323, at 327 (1957);
- Kaplan in THE PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION -- A COMMENT, 60
Northwestern University Law Review 174 (1965);
- Baker in THE PROSECUTOR -- INITIATION OF PROSECUTION, 23
Journal of Criminal Law 770 (1933);
- Jackson in THE FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, 24 Journal of the American
Judicature Society 18 (1940);
- Cates in CAN WE IGNORE LAWS? -- DISCRETION NOT TO PROSECUTE,
14 Alabama Law Review 1, at 7 (1962);
- Silbert in THE ROLE OF THE PROSECUTOR IN THE PROCESS OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE, 63 American Bar Association Journal 1717
(1977).
14 Even something as seemingly removed from the fine art of
sequestering common public knowledge of taxation by contract
away from people, a field of law enforcement seemingly aloof
from the high stakes game of tax collection -- Federal
Anti-Trust Enforcement -- is actually swirling in the same
vortex of manipulative selective prosecution by use of strategy
sessions held by United States Deputy Attorneys General in
Washington, as they go about their work trying to make sure that
only those cases conforming to a certain profile of criteria
within their classification are eventually sent to the Judiciary
for CRACKING, and one of those criteria is trying to identify,
before prosecution is initiated, which cases the Government is
likely to prevail on during appeal (see Suzanne Weaver in
DECISION TO PROSECUTE: ORGANIZATION AND PUBLIC POLICY IN THE
ANTI-TRUST DIVISION, [MIT Press, Cambridge (1978); 2nd
Edition]). So never assume what the Law is by the mere silence
of Judges, as a clever King has selectively withheld cases
potentially adverse to his position.
15 "[Income Taxes] were imposed by several of the states at or
shortly after the adoption of the Federal Constitution, New York
Laws 1778, chap. 17; Report of Oliver Wolcott, Jr., Secretary of
the Treasury, to the 4th Congress, 2nd Session (1796),
concerning direct taxes; AMERICAN STATE PAPERS, 1 Finance 423,
427, 429, 437, 439."
- SHAFFER VS. CARTER, 252 U.S. 37, at 51 (1919).
16 Acts of August 5, 1861 (Chapter 45, Section 49, 12 UNITED
STATES STATUTES AT LARGE 292, 309) -- confined the Income Tax
then to PERSONS residing within the United States (meaning
PERSONS accepting the benefits of the protection of the United
States) and United States Citizens residing abroad (meaning
PERSONS operating under the invisible Citizenship Contract).
Yes, well before the 14th or 16th Amendments, before Gremlin
EXTRAORDINAIRE Karl Marx made his appearance on the scene,
Income Taxes were both laid on and successfully collected from,
American Citizens. I will discuss both the 14th and 16th
Amendments later on, but you should be aware that numerous
people are arguing that you are not liable for the present
Income Tax of Title 26, based on infirmities and defenses
centered around the 14th or 16th Amendments; the information
being disseminated by these people is both erroneous at Law and
factually defective (defective by omission).
17 I once had a conversation with a Bolshevik Gremlin who works
for the Brookings Institution in Washington. There was an aura
permeating the atmosphere around him that was different, as if
there was a demon chill in the air. Sensing this introduction to
Hell, I almost felt as if I was in Tubingen University in
Germany, swirling in the midst of the ghostly political tempest
of devilish intrigue that has been going on there since the days
of Fredrich Schiller and George Hegel institutionalized the
kinky intellectual which that University generates, and which
ideological flotsam and doctrinal mischief continues on without
abatement down to the present day with Hans Kung and the Green
Party. But when this conversation drifted over towards the
Income Tax, all of a sudden he sparkled up a bit, and with a
devilishly sneaky cackle and a crooked grin that stretched fully
from one ear over to the other, this little Bolshevik Gremlin
then immediately blurted out his high approval of the Income Tax
by saying that "...Oh, we don't want to enrich them too
quickly." He seemed excessively concerned, even fixated, on
their objective that the countryside be allowed only minimum
subsistence income levels. I really got the message from him,
loud and clear, that they deem our deprivation of wealth to be
of maximum importance to them and their damages enscrewment
objectives.
18 For a highly detailed, thorough, and technical discussion on
the damaging relationship in effect between Income Taxation and
economic growth, see Vito Tanzi in THE INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX AND
ECONOMIC GROWTH: AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON [John Hopkins Press
(1969); revised and redated in 1980]. There is also a damages
relationship in effect between inflation and the Income Tax --
see Vito Tanzi in his book entitled INFLATION AND PERSONAL
INCOME TAX: AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE, written for the
International Monetary Fund [Cambridge University Press (1981)].
Yes, progressive taxation on net profits is the very element
itself that causes civilizations to fall -- a fact that Gremlins
do not want us to take cognizance of, or otherwise give much
thought to.
..When acquiring new information (or enlarging the factual
basis one has to exercise judgment on), one sometimes looks back
and realizes that the behavior once deemed acceptable in another
era is now unacceptable; so too will Tax Protestors take upon
themselves knowledge of invisible juristic contracts and then
when looking back realize the possibility, however remote, that
the actual tax protestings once exhibited in another era may
have been technically improvident for any one of several reasons
unknown at an earlier time. This practice of acquiring more
knowledge, and then discarding some outmoded behavior of a
previous era, is a recognized sign of organic intellectual
enlightenment by the Judiciary. In 1970, the Alaska Supreme
Court once ruled that regardless of past thinking and past
expectations surrounding criminal proceedings, things were now
going to different:
"We reach a point when the crudities of an earlier age must be
abandoned."
- BAKER VS. CITY OF FAIRBANKS, 471 P.2nd 386, at 403 (1970).
And that therefore, TRIAL BY JURY is now required in all Alaskan
State criminal prosecutions [overruling the previous common
practice of making Trial by Jury requisite only when the
prospective duration of incarceration exceeded six months.]
Just as Judges publicly express regrets over their previous
judgment -- exercised in an era when they thought they were
doing the right thing by coming down hard on criminals clear
across the board, so too should Tax Protestors take qualified
cognizance of the possibility that latent error might also be
present in their judgments as well.
19 For a discussion of decline in Holland from 1583 to 1674, for
reasons relating to the enactment of an income tax, as a war
measure, to finance a war against Spain and then continued after
the war, on justification grounds to suppress domestic Dutch
insurrections, see LA RICHESSE DE LA HOLLANDE, by Monsieur A. de
Serionne, published in London in 1778 [cited by Sir Inglis
Palgrave, in a speech at the Inaugural Meeting of the Institute
of Bankers in Ireland on November 4, 1909]; as reprinted in the
English periodical entitled BANKER'S MAGAZINE for December, 1909
and February, 1910 [London: Waterton and Sons (1910)].
20 When discussing corporate departures from New York, starting
in the mid 60's and continuing on into the 70's, the NEW YORK
TIMES would always talk about the allure of "the Sun Belt," and
of the temperature in Houston, and of other environmental
inducements, but never at any time was there any discussion as
to the incredible State Income Taxes that Nelson Rockefeller was
demanding, and getting, out of the Legislature. But the TIMES
was lying, as it is very good at, as the Editors knew then that
the attraction of the Southern Sun Belt did not explain why a
large volume of the corporate exodus out of New York City went
north into states like Connecticut (which had no state personal
or corporate taxes in the 1960's), New Hampshire and Vermont.
Business managers were also lying in their public explanations
of corporate exodus, as I mentioned earlier in the context of
deception in Commercial dynasties, as they deflected attention
away from Nelson's State Income Tax, into such nice soft areas
of "employee preferences" and the like. The closest point the
NEW YORK TIMES came to in hitting the nail right on the head (in
this area of corporate geographical exodus to avoid unreasonable
taxation), came during the reign of Governor Hugh Carey in 1977,
when the New York State Senate Labor Committee under Chairman
Norman Levy, out from underneath the thumb of Nelson
Rockefeller, held Hearings on this question, and found that of
111 corporate executives interviewed in New York City, 76
reluctantly admitted that State income taxes were the propulsion
force driving their relocation plans [see the NEW YORK TIMES
["Corporations Fret About New York Tax"], Section 1, page 28
(April 3, 1977)]. So much for the nice temperature of Houston.
21 Although the income tax on profits is the true source of
economic stagnation, as Gremlins strive to run one civilization
into the ground after another -- here their MODUS OPERANDI of
deception surfaces again, because when Gremlins and their
INTELLIGENTSIA imps try to explain away the true source of a
long term declension in national economic prosperity, they will
invariably turn around and point attention over to their
irritant: INDIVIDUALS:
"The nineteenth century had accepted as one of its basic faiths
the theory of `the harmony of interests.' This held that what
was good for the individual was good for the society as a whole
and that the general advancement of society could be achieved
best if individuals were left free to seek their own individual
advantages. This harmony was assumed to exist between one
individual and another, between the individual and the group,
and between the short run and the long run. In the nineteenth
century, such a theory was perfectly tenable, but in the
twentieth century it could only be accepted with considerable
modification [that's right -- remember, folks, this is the
MODERN era, and you just don't need to concern yourself with the
past]. As a result of persons seeking their individual
advantages, the economic organization of society was so modified
that the actions of one such person were very likely to injure
his fellows, the society as a whole, and his own long-range
advantage [just somehow]. This situation led to such a conflict
between theory and practice, between aims and accomplishments,
between individuals and groups, that a return to fundamentals in
economics became necessary [meaning total top-down Gremlin
control of the economy]."
- Imp Carroll Quigley in TRAGEDY AND HOPE, at page 497
[MacMillian Company, New York (1966)].
Notice what really irritates Gremlins and the imps they hire:
INDIVIDUALS, and everything else Noble and Great their impending
Celestial Status represents. Here we have a sponsored Professor
Carroll Quigley, trying to pass himself off as a history
professor, and while using an opportunity to come down on free
competitive enterprise, he starts throwing invectives
interstitially at those annoying INDIVIDUALS. And INDIVIDUALS,
exercising their own judgment, managing their own affairs, and
trying to be responsible for themselves as the embryo Eloheim
that they are, have long been a recurring source of irritation
to Gremlins [see INDIVIDUALISM AND SOCIALISM by Kirby Page
[Farrar & Rhinehart, New York (1933)]; Socialist Kirby Page
equates that heinous cult of INDIVIDUALISM with so called
Capitalism, and predicts that both will soon be crushed by
National Socialism. Lucifer has a few surprises to throw at both
Carroll Quigley and Kirby Page at the Last Day, synchronous with
Page and Quigley momentarily OPENING THEIR EYES once again, too
late, to realize that they had repeated the same doctrinal error
here in the Second Estate over a protracted period of time that
they previously committed once before in the First Estate, and
also over a protracted period of time. And there are several
very good reasons why INDIVIDUALS are so irritating to Gremlins,
one of which is:
"The most basic, fundamental Principle of truth, that upon
which the entire plan of God is founded, is free agency. As an
Individual, you have the right to govern yourself. It is
divinely given to you to think and act as you wish. It is your
decision.
"It must be pointed out, however, that although you have the
free agency to choose for yourself, you do not have the right to
choose what will be the result of your decision. The results of
what you think and do are governed by law. Good returns good.
Evil returns evil [throughout this Letter, I will cite examples
on how the violation of Principles will always generate latent
secondary adverse circumstances out in the future, with the
seminal point of origin of those secondary adverse circumstances
being latent [invisible] and difficult to see]. You govern
yourself by subjecting yourself to the discipline of the law. If
you are obedient to God's law, you remain free. You progress and
are perfected. If you are disobedient to God's law, you bind
yourself to that which restricts your progress. You become
defiled and unworthy to be an associate with those who are more
clean and pure."
- William R. Bradford in CONFERENCE REPORTS, at 53 (October,
1979).
22 For a discussion on the relationship in effect between the
enactment of American Income Taxes and war, going back to the
American Civil War; and of the second administration of
President Cleveland who wanted to reinstate the Income Tax to
give away massive financial aid and quash an impending rebellion
by Western farmers, see a chapter entitled "What Rip Van Winkle
Woke Up To" in a book entitled THE COLD WAR AND THE INCOME TAX
by Edward Wilson [Farrar, Strauss & Company, New York, 1963].
23 "The real effect of a tax on profits is to make the country
possess at any given periodd, a smaller capital and smaller
aggregate production, and to make the stationary state be
attained earlier, and with a smaller sum of national wealth
[yes, the Gremlins know exactly what they are doing]. It is
possible that a tax on profits might even diminish the existing
capital of the country. If the rate of profit is already at the
practical minimum, that is, at the point at which all that
portion of the annual increment which would tend to reduce
profits is carried off either by
