Illegittimità della cartella esattoriale

Cassazione Sentenza n. 22997 depositata il 12 novembre 2010.

Con la sentenza n. 22997 depositata il 12 novembre 2010, la Corte di Cassazione ha stabilito l’illegittimità della cartella esattoriale che non contenga l’indicazione precisa della data di esecutività. La mancata indicazione nella cartella di pagamento della data in cui sono stati consegnati i ruoli al concessionario della riscossione rende l’atto illegittimo; tale omissione, infatti, non consente al contribuente di verificare l’esatta quantificazione degli interessi liquidati sull’atto e determina una carenza di motivazione della cartella notificata.

Il principio è stato emesso dalla Sezione Tributaria civile della Corte di Cassazione che ha spiegato la ragione sottesa alla decisione adducendo che la stessa è da individuarsi nell’art. 12 n.3 del d.p.r. n. 603/1973, così come modificato dal d. lgs. 46/1999, in cui viene stabilito che la cartella di pagamento deve contenere, tra le altre cose, anche la data in cui il ruolo diventa esecutivo.

In passato,vi era stato un contrasto giurisprudenziale tra le commissioni di merito; che, tra le varie interpretazioni giurisprudenziali, ritenevano che la consegna dei ruoli fosse un fatto interno tra ufficio finanziario e concessionario della riscossione e che, quindi, una sua eventuale omissione non avesse effetti sui rapporti fisco-contribuente. Ciò emergeva in particolare, dal 1 luglio 2005, data in cui è stato abrogato l’articolo 17 del dpr 602/73 (che prevedeva la procedura di riscossione divisa in fasi: iscrizione a ruolo, consegna al concessionario e notifica al contribuente). Dalla stessa data, l’art. 25 della stessa norma prevede che termini decadenziali siano limitati solo alla notifica della cartella al contribuente. Recentemente, con sentenza 487/14/10 del 20 luglio 2010 la Commissione Tributaria del Lazio, aveva stabilito che, in considerazione dell’art. 25 del dpr 602/73, la cartella di pagamento, oltre ai contenuti minimi obbligatori (tributo, periodo d’imposta, imponibile ed aliquota applicata), non necessitava di alcuna ulteriore motivazione particolare. Nello specifico si leggeva che «nella valutazione della tempestività dell’azione impositiva dell’amministrazione finanziaria e in seguito all’evoluzione normativa, non riveste più alcun significato la verifica della data di esecutività dei ruoli o di quella relativa alla consegna degli stessi ruoli al concessionario della riscossione, assumendo, per contro, rilevanza solo la data di “notifica” della cartella».

Pertanto, la recente sentenza della Cassazione ribalta completamente l’ultimo orientamento della giurisprudenza di merito e della Commissione Tributaria del Lazio.

La Suprema Corte stabilisce così un principio di diritto innovativo in base al quale «La legittimità della cartella di pagamento è subordinata alla verifica degli interessi richiesti; il riferimento al calcolo degli interessi dovuti, infatti, non è in alcun modo prescritto dalla normativa di riferimento (art. 12 del dpr 602/73) e appare collegato alla data di esecutività del ruolo, unico dato che ne consente la verifica. È vero infatti che le procedure di formazione del ruolo sono determinate con decreto ministeriale (art. 12, n. 2 del dpr n. 602/1973) e che gli interessi, in base all’art. 2 della legge 29/61, si computano dal giorno in cui il tributo è divenuto esigibile; quindi, la certezza dell’inizio della esigibilità, si può verificare solo dalla precisa indicazione della data di esecutività del ruolo». Pertanto, con questo nuovo indirizzo giurisprudenziale ben delineato e decisamente innovativo, le cartelle esattoriali di pagamento notificate ai contribuenti prive della data di consegna dei ruoli saranno nulle per carenza di motivazione della pretesa creditoria e mancanza di uno degli elementi fondamentali ovvero la data di esecutività del ruolo circostanza che non consentirebbe al contribuente di quantificare e/o controllare esattamente il dovuto anche in base alle modalità di determinazione degli interessi.

Nella cartella esattoriale deve essere indicata in modo dettagliato la modalità di determinazione degli interessi, in modo che il contribuente abbia realmente la possibilità di verificare i calcoli effettuati dall’Agente della Riscossione.

Ciò è quanto emerge da una recente sentenza della Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Lecce (sentenza n. 206/02/10, liberamente scaricabile dal sito www.studiolegalesances.it – sezione Documenti), la quale evidenzia la mancanza di trasparenza delle cartelle esattoriali.

In merito a tale questione, è bene far presente che da tempo molte associazioni oltre che vari gruppi spontanei a difesa dei contribuenti (si veda ad esempio il sito www.cartellaesattoriale.it o il gruppo di facebook “SOS FISCO” http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=118592553830&v=wall ) sono in prima linea nel denunciare la totale mancanza di trasparenza delle cartelle esattoriali.

Recependo proprio questo grido di allarme, i Giudici di Lecce chiariscono che “Il contenuto della cartella non consente di poter operare qualsivoglia controllo dell’operato della Amministrazione Finanziaria. Non vi è dunque trasparenza dell’operato dell’Ufficio in violazione del diritto di difesa del contribuente. Ne segue che gli importi iscritti a ruolo potrebbero essere probabili ma non anche certi e dovuti”.

Ne deriva, pertanto, che solo un atto trasparente e facilmente leggibile (e controllabile) da parte del contribuente può rispettare i canoni di un atto legittimo, in quanto non crea alcun dubbio in merito alle somme richieste.

Infatti, proprio relativamente a questo aspetto i Giudici chiariscono che “A ben osservare, l’art. 12, comma 3 (l’ammontare dell’imposta dovuta nonché quello degli interessi, delle soprattasse e delle pene pecuniarie) e l’art. 25 nonché la ratio dell’abrogato art. 17 del D.P.R. n. 602/73 consente l’iscrizione a ruolo dell’importo dovuto e non anche di somme non dovute” e ancora si evidenzia che “Nel caso di specie l’Amministrazione Finanziaria aveva dunque l’obbligo di provare la legittimità del proprio operato in tema di interessi, esternando l’iter seguito nella determinazione degli stessi” (pagina 5 della sentenza).

Alla luce di quanto illustrato, dunque, per i Giudici di prime cure NON ESISTE UNA PRESUNZIONE DI LEGITTIMITA’ DELLE SOMME PRETESE DALL’UFFICIO, IL QUALE E’ TENUTO A PROVARE LA CORRETTEZZA DELLE PROPRIE PRETESE COME UN QUALUNQUE CREDITORE.

Viene dunque accolta l’eccezione del contribuente, secondo il quale il comportamento adottato dall’Agente della Riscossione determina una grave lesione del diritto di difesa poiché “il contenuto della cartella non consente di operare alcun controllo”.

Oltre a quanto chiarito in sentenza, poi, si tiene ad evidenziare un ulteriore aspetto.

È importante sottolineare, infatti, che gli errori legati al calcolo degli interessi si ripercuotono anche sul calcolo dei compensi di riscossione (cd. aggio) che, come è noto, sono quantificati in base alle singole componenti del credito tributario (interessi compresi).

Appare lampante, quindi, come venga a mancare la certezza delle somme richieste dal Concessionario.

Mancando, dunque, il requisito della trasparenza e della certezza, si ritiene che ne derivi la caducazione del titolo esecutivo (non più certo, liquido ed esigibile) “che può essere rilevata anche d’ufficio in ogni stato e grado del giudizio ed anche per la prima volta nel giudizio di cassazione, trattandosi di presupposto dell’azione esecutiva” (sent. Cassaz., sez.III, nr. 9293/2001).

IMF Prepares For "Threat To International Monetary System"

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 03/24/2011, ZeroHedge

Back in April 2010, before Waddell and Reed sold a few shares of ES, effectively destroying the market on news that Europe was insolvent, we made the following observation: "The IMF has just announced that it is expanding its New Arrangement to Borrow (NAB) multilateral facility from its existing $50 billion by a whopping $500 billion (SDR333.5 billion), to $550 billion." Little did we know that our conclusion "something big must be coming" would prove spot on just a month later after Greece, then Ireland, then Portgual, and soon Spain, Italy, Belgium, and pretty much all other European countries would topple like dominoes tethered together by a flawed monetary regime. Well, based on news from Dow Jones we can now safely predict the following: "something bigger must be coming." As if the IMF's trillions in open lending facilities (many of which have recently been adjusted to uncapped) were not enough, we now learn that the world lender of last resort (which in theory is the Fed, but apparently Bernanke has been getting a little shy lately so is offsetting his direct lending directives to secondary organizations like the IMF, leaving the Fed with only USD liquidity swaps) is about to activate a "Special Funding Pool" - Dow Jones explains: "The International Monetary Fund is expected to soon activate a special funding pool that will boost the fund's ability to prevent or resolve economic crises, two people familiar with the situation said Thursday. One of the people said the activation of the funding--which can only be made by a special request from the IMF managing director to the board--was in anticipation of an expected wave of new IMF programs, including the possible expansion of the Greek bailout package." Wonderful. Global financial cataclysm rinse repeat all over again...

More from Dow Jones:

Activating access to the funding pool could provide assurance to the market of the IMF's ability to backstop any major funding crisis amid ongoing fears that Europe's sovereign debt woes will worsen. The IMF board recently approved a boost to the so-called New Arrangements To Borrow, bringing the special pool of funding to around $580 billion, adding several hundred billion dollars to the total amount the fund has to tap. According to the IMF, the pool of supplementary resources are only to be activated when "needed to forestall or cope with a threat to the international monetary system."

Although no request has been made, markets, analysts and economists say rejection by the Portuguese parliament Wednesday of a belt-tightening budget all but sealed the likelihood Lisbon will request aid from the IMF and the European Union.

Bottom line: there is a new threat to the international monetary system which means Europe May 2010 redux is imminent.

US taxpayers: our condolences.

RIP-OFF BY THE FEDERAL RESERVE

RIP-OFF BY THE FEDERAL RESERVE

Revised 3/24/2011

PREFACE: This mathematical analysis shows how:

1. The present practice in the U.S. of creating book-entry money via T-securities (deficit spending) in the amount of the principal of the security, with a promise to repay the principal PLUS the interest, is impossible. The interest is never created; the debt is perpetual and must continually be increased or the economy will collapse from de-leveraging;

2. All other fiscal obligations of the nation must be curtailed while the growth in debt will escalate. The exponential growth of the interest and snow-balling debt will increase until the entire wealth of the nation, and of future generations, is inadequate to fund it;

3. ALL money created by Treasury securities goes into the pocket of the Fed ($8.4 trillion for 2010). Not only does the Fed receive the interest (if not sold), but also the value of the security upon maturity (or by sale). Congress has temporary benefit of $1.4 trillion deficit money (until maturity) during 2010;

4. The operation is, as in any Ponzi scheme, predestined for inherent national bankruptcy when buyers to roll over the debt cannot be found. As the scheme becomes visibly precarious, the interest rate will sky-rocket and accelerate the collapse.

　

*********************************

The Federal Reserve uses euphemistic smoke and mirrors to obscure their scam. With full knowledge the following is not the way the Fed/government describes the system, allow me to offer a different analysis of their operation.

Congress can pay for federal expenses with funds collected from taxes, but Congress is never satisfied with this amount. The desire to buy votes/campaign contributions from special interest groups induces congress-critters to spend more, and this is identified as deficit spending. To create this make-believe money requires the assistance of the Federal Reserve.

Congress will give the Fed a T-security (bill, bond, or note) and the Fed will accept the document as an asset of one of the twelve FR Banks. The Fed will then establish a line of credit for the U.S. government (a book entry) in the same amount and list the liability as Federal Reserve Notes. Voila !! Fiat money has just been created for Congress to spend. Ref: 2009 Annual Report to Congress by the Board of Governors, page 448.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/annual09/pdf/ar09.pdf The accumulated securities that are not redeemed add up to the national debt.

If the Fed retained all of the securities (assets), the public would quickly complain that interest payments (approximately $400 billion annually) are of no benefit and the inflationary pressure would also be obvious. The Fed therefore wants to sell a major portion of the securities so it has arranged with the Treasury department to act as auctioneer for selling to the Primary Dealers. The PD submit sealed bids. Since the security has a fixed face value and interest rate, the higher the bid, the lower the interest rate for the buyer.

The Fed recently obtained $700 billion bailout funds. Secretary Paulson begged Congress, on actual bended knee, to give the Fed money and Congress gave them $700 billion in securities and the Fed swapped the securities to GSE (Freddie and Fannie)/international bankers for toxic MBS‘s---and rescued Paulson’s $800 million in Goldman stock by bailing out AIG.

The Annual Report lists Assets of $776 billion securities and $908 billion Government Sponsored Enterprise Mortgage Backed securities out of $2.2 trillion total assets. Whether the bailout money was a quid pro quo with the PD to avoid lawsuits for fraud is beyond the scope of this writing. The International Bankers do not lightly suffer transgression. The continued mutual benefit of programs, paid for by taxpayers, should evidence Wall Street and the Fed/international bankers constitutes a Siamese twin.

The value of any securities not sold by the Fed is still in circulation and becomes the Reserves for commercial banks. Commercial banks, as an aggregate, have no other source of reserves. All money in circulation is originated from T-securities. The reserves, derived from Treasury checks deposited throughout the world, are then multiplied via loans by commercial banks utilizing the fractional reserve practice. The System Open Market Committee (SOMC) selling and buying of securities alters the reserves--with high leverage. Operation of this system was alleged to have deliberately caused the 1929 Depression. Ref. Raichle v FRB of New York, 34 F2d 910 (1929). The Fed currently holds about $750 billion of $12.5 trillion issued securities. Ref.
http://www.fms.treas.gov/bulletin/b2009_3.pdf. Chart OFS-1.

Observe that the amount of money created by the security is the amount of the principal but the amount promised to be repaid is the principal AND the interest. The interest is never created but payment is required by the agreement. It is impossible. The linear expansion of base money via fractional reserves to create commercial loans does not change this. If, hypothetically, all money in circulation was used to pay off the securities issued by Congress, all bank reserves would be wiped out and the commercial loans would collapse---and every dollar of interest on the national debt accumulated from day one would still be due---but there would be no money outside of the Fed’s vaults to pay it.

There are esteemed economists who contend the fractional reserve multiplier is a major cause of inflation. The concept is questionable. Assuming the amount of base money and the multiplier factor remain constant, the creation of fractional reserve money reaches a ceiling that cannot be exceeded until more base money (from T-security issues) is added. The multiplier factor is a mere linear increase of the base money that the Fed can alter by SOMC transactions.

The debt created by usury based sovereign debt is perpetual; it can never be paid off. The contract cannot be culminated. Any contract that cannot be culminated is an act of fraud. A contract based upon fraud is invalid upon its inception. It would appear the national debt is not legally enforceable. (A debt incurred by a state or municipality is not a sovereign debt as used in this analysis. Such a debt is akin to a commercial loan and is completely repayable---but may be evidence of unwise administration and result in default.)

There is more skullduggery involved. Let us assume a newly established sovereign nation is setting up a usury based economy and will issue 100 unit securities, a five year maturity, and an annual interest rate of 20 percent over a span of five years. The identifications of Congress and the Fed will be used to convey the images.

Upon the issuance of the first security, Congress has 100 units to spend. At the end of the year, Congress/Treasury has to pay 20 units to the Fed for interest. If the nation had to pay off the security at the end of the first year, the bankruptcy is obvious. There have never been 120 units created. Twenty units could be removed from society but that would leave only 80 units in circulation, cause great financial hardships, and still leave an impossible obligation to redeem a 100 unit security. (This economic diminution would be akin to a contemporary balanced budget.) The solution is to put off the interest payment until the next issue of security for the second year. The interest is paid from the principal created by the second issue.

During the second year there are 200 units in circulation but the actual rate of interest on the second issue is not 20 percent. Since 20 units had to be paid to the security holders, congress only received 180 units to spend (100 + 80) but they are committed to pay 40 units of interest on the security at the end of the second year. The interest rate of 40 divided by 180 is 22.2 percent. Considering the second year alone, the interest is 20 divided by 80 or 25 percent.

When the security for the third year is issued, the interest of 40 units for the first two years securities will not be available for congress. Congress will receive only 60 units for public projects but will have to pay 20 units interest at the end of the year. The 240 units received by congress (100 + 80 + 60) will require 60 units of interest at the end of the third year. The cumulative interest rate (60 divided by 240) is 25 percent. The interest rate for the third year alone (20 divided by 60) is 33.3 percent.

At the start of the fourth year, the security will have to cover the interest charge for the three prior years of 60 units. Congress will receive 40 units for government spending. The 280 units received by congress (100 + 80 + 60 + 40) will demand 80 units of interest at the end of the fourth year. The cumulative interest rate (80 divided by 280) is 28.5 percent. The interest rate for the fourth year alone (20 divided by 40) is 50 percent.

The security issued for the fifth year will pay the 80-unit interest for the prior four years. Congress will have 20 units to splurge. The 300 units received by congress (100 + 80 + 60 + 40 + 20) will require 100 units of interest at the end of the fifth year. The cumulative interest rate (100 divided by 300) is 33.3 percent. The interest rate for the fifth year alone (20 units received--20 units in interest) is 100 percent.

At the end of the fifth year, 100 units must be found to redeem the maturing security issued the first year (that “loaned” 100 units to the government) in addition to 100 units of interest that must be paid. Congress has an obligation to pay 200 units. This factor alone makes it obvious that more debt must be incurred to continue the scheme. The inescapable whirlpool of usury debt can only avoid obvious default by increasing the value of future securities. Increasing the value of issued securities merely postpones the inevitable result.

As the sixth year approaches, the Fed holds 500 units of securities that must be redeemed by the Treasury before year eleven. The Fed has already received 200 units as interest while Congress retains 300 units from those securities. Before year eleven, the securities will accumulate an additional 300 units of interest payable to the Fed. That accounts for the entire 1000 units of securities and interest that have been involved over the five years. (Each of the five 100 unit securities involved 100 units of interest.)

Do not let the subtly of the numbers escape you. As the example demonstrates, the Fed receives the total value of the security and the interest if it does not sell the security. Only 500 units were created by the securities but 1000 units were somehow acquired by the Fed. The only way for Congress to get the funding is to issue a 200 unit security at the end of the fifth and subsequent years and ALL of the value will be instantly due to the Fed. The scheme is not only perpetual but it must increase in size to continue. And of course, when the 200 unit security matures, the value will belong to the Fed. And then a larger security must be issued to pay for the 200 unit security and the accruing interest further down the road. This is the methodology of any Ponzi scheme. The increase in the required size of deficit spending must be large enough to make the interest payment a relatively acceptable percentage to minimize public hostility. (In 2009, the 200 unit roll-over value reached $7.0 trillion with an additional $1.4 trillion debt for deficit spending. Ref. Post).

A government publication has noted the fiscal policy insecurity: “(T)his growing gap between (Government’s) receipts and total spending …cannot be sustained indefinitely.”
http://www.fms.treas.gov/frsummary/frsummary2010.pdf page 3 of 12.

If the security is sold at auction, as approximately ninety percent of them are, the Fed receives the value of the security from the Primary Dealer and the ultimate purchaser is then reimbursed by the Treasury at maturity. Either way, the Fed eventually receives the value of the security. The value of all redeemed T-securities is a clear profit for the Fed, along with the value of all securities sold to/held by Primary Dealers, funds, nations, states, or financial institutes.

But 5 year securities are a slow game. If we shifted our attention to 13 week bills, or even four-week bills, each obligation will quickly mature and must repeatedly be rolled over. Each new issue is profit for the Fed. If time lapse between bid and issue dates are ignored, the roll-over of four week 100 unit securities can be repeated thirteen times within a year. The gain of 1300 units of profit for the Fed only involves 100 units of national debt.

Low interest rates will reduce gain for security investors but will provide cheap money for commercial banks to loan. Much of the interest from T-securities held by the Fed must be returned to the government as a result of 1970’s legislation, so the Fed has little motivation to raise rates to make more money--they receive the value of the security.

The total value of auctions in 2010 was $8.4 trillion. Approximately $6 trillion matured in less than one year.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/instit/annceresult/press/preanre/2010/2010.htm ; http://www.treasurydirect.gov/RI/OFAuctions?form=histQuery .

The handling of auction funds is the responsibility of the Fed. Ref. GAO FINANCIAL REPORT TO SECRETARY OF TREASURY, Nov 2010, page 17.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/feddebt/feddebt_ann2010.pdf. The sales must be credited to an account of the Fed and not to an account of the Treasury. There is no inflation if it is otherwise.

The $8.4 trillion in income does not reveal itself in the ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS; Ref. Tables 10 and 11, pages 454 to 462 REPORT for 2009. Id. (Auctions are not Open Market transactions. Securities that are not sold are assigned to SOMC.) This $8.4 trillion is concealed from Congress and the public.

The NY Fed also handles redeeming the securities. Ref. ACCOUNTING FOR TREASURY SECURITIES AT THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK , GAO /AFMD-84-10, May 2, 1984, page 9 of 30,
http://archive.gao.gov/d5t1/124060.pdf. The report does not identify the account that is being used to redeem the securities. This writer concludes the payments are debited to an account of the Treasury and not to an account of the Fed.

Confirmation of the Fed’s handling is found in their ANNUAL REPORT: BUDGET REVIEW 2010, “The Reserve Banks auction, issue, maintain and redeem securities…(and handle) paper U.S. savings bonds and book-entry marketable Treasury securities.” p 5.

“Aha!” exclaims a disciple of the Fed. “The above analyze proves the fallacy of the theory. The $8.4 trillion is obviously being used to pay the redeemed securities and the sale and redemptions are off-setting.” And thus would the Fed beguile the naïve. Indeed, the Treasury’s receiving the value from auctions for that purpose is widely proclaimed in media publications. Treasury financial statements also claim “borrowing from the public” finances government operations. However, direct transfer of money from the public cannot, in any way, expand the monetary system or result in the creation of fiat money (i.e., inflation) any more than can the payment of taxes by a private entity. The label is deliberatively misleading. The confusion actually confirms the scenario developed herein.

When $8.4 trillion in securities is transferred from the Treasury to the Fed, there is a credit on the account of the Treasury (but is considered a liability in a Fed account titled federal reserve notes) and an asset entry in an account of the Fed (titled T-securities). The Treasury’s $8.4 trillion book-entry is used to pay the $7 trillion redeemed securities with $1.4 trillion being available for deficit spending by Congress. The T-securities possessed as an asset by the Fed are sold at auction and the $8.4 trillion belongs to the Fed. Where the value from the auctions is entered into the books of the Fed, and to where the $8.4 trillion goes, is not available information. This is how the fiat money of inflation is created as detailed earlier. It is assured that the IRS knows nothing of this income.

Similar historic banking operations declared they loaned the value of the security to the king and therefore they should receive interest from the loan. The pretense is a sham. Congress and the Fed have agreed they are going to rip-off the public by devaluating the currency. Each party acquired purchasing power from the scheme. Congress gave a promise to pay (a security) which was quickly sold by the Fed and the Fed gave a promise to pay the government’s checks with fiat book-entry money (printing press money, i.e., FRN‘s, a legal tender.). It is an acknowledgement of debt that can never be paid because there is no lawful money available; there is only more debt of an under-capitalized federal corporation.

To get the scheme started and financed by third parties, it must have the appearance that interest is their source of profit and a gain must be made from the brokerage difference. A prime concern for the Fed under these conditions would be the difference in the value credited to the Treasury account and the value received from the auction. If the value of securities purchased by the public is transmitted directly to the Treasury, there cannot be any inflation, but then there is no gain to the Fed from book-entry money. The percentage taken by the Fed for profit can even be variable but is hidden without an audit.

Perhaps we are catching a glimpse of how the Fed may have been started. If the Fed was created by Congress as a brokerage firm to sell government bonds to the public, it would be a simple arrangement with minimal investment or risk. The currency in circulation in 1913 was non-interest bearing U.S. Notes. After the operation has been set up and the New York Federal Bank is handling the accounting, it would be a simple shift of accounting procedures to have the T-securities accepted by the FR Bank as owner instead of as a broker. The difference allows the Bank to create fiat money (inflation or Federal Reserve Notes) as a profit for the Bank. Whether this falls within the parameters of embezzlement depends upon many conditions.

The 1913 congressional report of objects of the legislation by Senator Glass included the statement “(3) Furnishing an elastic currency…of bank notes…” Perhaps the enumerated powers of the Federal Reserve Banks at 12 USC section 341, paragraph Eighth, might be stretched to authorize such practice. However, the courts have repeatedly concluded the profits of the Fed belong to the United States. Ref. Scott v FRB of Kansas City, 405 F3d 532, 535; In Re Hoag Ranches, 846 F2d 1227. The fact that the income is not reported is suggestive of subterfuge.

To put $8.4 trillion in perspective, the 2010 operation of the U.S. government involved $3.4 trillion and that includes the $1.3 trillion deficit. The entire amount of taxes collected by the U.S. government was only $2.1 trillion.

Good luck on trying to follow this sequence in the accounting records. Even Enron, World Com, and Bernie were able to cook the books---and they were audited. The annual audit of the Fed follows accounting guidelines established by the Fed. It is assured the receipts and disbursements for T-security auctions are not examined. But the methodology of the Fed may be identified: the accounting records do not reflect “securities purchased under agreements to resell.” Ref. Table 9A, note 4, Annual Report.

If asked “Who owns the T-securities that are sold at the auctions--the Fed or the U.S. government?” a Fed representative will respond “The securities are a liability of the government.” An astute observer will note the inquiry was avoided; it was not answered.

A high rate of interest has been selected for the example to minimize repetitive calculations. A ten percent interest rate will return 100 percent of the security value in ten years; a five percent interest rate will take twenty years. Lower rates of interest merely require more years to reach the same inherent bankruptcy. (Actually, bankruptcy occurs the first year irrespective of the interest rate, but then again, since the debt can never be paid off, the entire scheme is based upon fraud. A contract based upon fraud is void from its inception.)

An economic scheme that utilizes later investors to pay the interest due earlier investors is identified as a Ponzi scheme. This is precisely the scheme that has been presented above.

A newspaper article a couple of years ago informed us the annual increase in interest to be 15 percent while the budget only grew 7 percent. That reflects the exponential growth of interest. More recently the deficit has been increasing much faster to fund/conceal the rapid growth in interest requirement---and to rescue financial institutes from default. Professor Bob Blain, Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville has graphed the exponential growth in debt from 1915 to be irregular only during the 1930’s.

In 1790 during Congress’ consideration of Alexander Hamilton’s proposal to pay the national debt with a usury based obligation placed upon the citizens, congressman James Jackson, after lengthy reflection on the devastation similar plans had imposed on European countries and cities, included the following observation to Congress:

“Let us take warning by the errors of Europe, and guard against the introduction of a system followed by calamities so universal…The funding of the debt will occasion enormous taxes for the payment of the interest…(such a system) must hereafter settle upon our posterity a burthen (sic) which they can neither bear nor relieve themselves from.” Ref. ANNALS OF CONGRESS, Vol. 1, 1790, pp. 1141-2.

In actual practice within the United States, a collection of taxes for part of the government spending is well known. Payment of part of the government expenses by taxation does not alter the government’s usury program; for analytical analysis they can stand alone. The current pattern of increasingly larger deficit spending is the escalation as the climax of chaos beyond description approaches.

The Creature from Jekyll Island

GLENN BECK WILL PLUG

The Creature from Jekyll Island

by G. Edward Griffin

On Friday 2011 March 25, the entire Glenn Beck show will be devoted to an exposé of the Federal Reserve. I was invited to be a guest on the program and, when it was taped last Tuesday, I was amazed to find that Beck, not only has read the book but praised it highly. In fact, almost his entire opening monologue was based on the information and, in some cases, the very same phrases used in the book and in my lectures. I was delighted to know that someone, either Beck or his researchers, had spent a great deal of time studying The Creature from Jekyll Island. But what is even more encouraging is that several million viewers will be exposed to an hour of economic and monetary truth. This will bring us a giant step closer to actually slaying the Creature.

The reason I am writing to you is that this media exposure will open up many minds that previously were closed on this topic. Now is the time to reach out to friends, neighbors, and leaders with an invitation to read the book. We must strike while the iron is hot. So I am putting the book on special sale for the next week to encourage you to acquire a few extra copies either to give away or sell. Through the rest of March, the book, which retails at $24.50 alone or $19.60 with any additional purchase, will be on sale for $19.50 alone or $15.60 with additional purchase. We still have about 50 copies left of the previous 4th edition, and those will be on sale this week as long as they last for $14 in any quantity.

Click here to order

Capitalism may have ended life on Mars

Capitalism may have ended life on Mars: Chavez

ABC News, Mar 23, 2011

'Capitalism may be to blame': Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez (Reuters: Jorge Silva)

Capitalism may be to blame for the lack of life on Mars, Venezuela's socialist president Hugo Chavez says.

"I have always said, heard, that it would not be strange that there had been civilisation on Mars, but maybe capitalism arrived there, imperialism arrived and finished off the planet," Mr Chavez said in a speech to mark World Water Day.

Mr Chavez, who also holds capitalism responsible for many of the world's problems, warned water supplies on Earth were drying up.

"Careful. Here on planet Earth, where hundreds of years ago or less there were great forests, now there are deserts. Where there were rivers, there are deserts," Mr Chavez said, sipping from a glass of water.

He added that the West's attacks on Libya were about water and oil reserves.

Earlier this month, the US National Research Council recommended NASA's top priority should be a robot to help determine whether Mars ever supported life and offer insight on its geological and climatic history.

It would also be the first step in an effort to get samples from Mars back to Earth.

A NASA team recently tested a space suit in a setting with extreme conditions akin to some of those found on Mars - an Argentine base in Antarctica - for possible use on a visit to the red planet.

- Reuters

PROCURE INDAGANO SULLE BANCHE PER ASSOCIAZIONE A DELINGUERE

FINALMENTE ALCUNE PROCURE STANNO INDAGANDO SULLE BANCHE PER ASSOCIAZIONE A DELINGUERE

IMPORTANTE URGENTE

Alle VITTIME BANCARIE CHE HANNO I C/C "USO PIAZZA"

Vi informiamo che a seguito della denuncia depositata il 21.01.2010 dal Presidente del Forum Antiusura Bancaria On. Dott. Domenico Scilipoti, nella quale venivano rappresentati fatti riconducibili a possibili accordi di cartello posti in essere dalle Banche che non avrebbero mai rinegoziato i contratti "uso piazza", diverse Procure della Repubblica hanno avviato indagini per accertare la sussistenza del reato di associazione per delinquere. Ai fini delle indagini, dette Procure hanno chiesto idonea documentazione.

Pertanto, chiediamo a TUTTI QUELLI CHE HANNO I PROPRI CONTI CORRENTE DETERMINATI DALLE CONDIZIONI "uso piazza" ai quali non fu notificata la rinegoziazione ai sensi della L. 154/92, trasfusa nel T.U.B. n. 385/93 (cioè a TUTTI), che volessero presentare prova del presunto reato, di CONTATTARE con URGENZA I SEGUENTI REFERENTI :

- Candotti Giuseppe -Coordinatore Forum Nord Italia 338.8573587 - giuseppe.candotti@libero.it

- Gennaro Baccile - Coordinatore C/sud 085.9066235 - genbacci@tin.it ;

- Emidio Orsini - Coordinatore C/nord 327/8565876 - info@orsiniemidio.it ;

- Bruno De Ciccio - Coordinatore Sud 335/ 7959222 - info@sclnet.it ;

- Leonardo Carpinteri - Coordinatore Isole 0923/29754 - leonardo.carpinteri@euin.it.

Sono necessari :

- Copia dei contratti di conto corrente "uso piazza";

- Consenso all'utilizzo per fini giudiziari.


Orsini Emidio

The Law for Big Bankers Is Different

Other Words / By William Collins

9 COMMENTS

The Law for Big Bankers Is Different than for the Rest of Us

The new House leadership may not have much success reopening loopholes closed by the Dodd-Frank law. So their new game is simply to leave the reforms underfunded.

AlterNet, March 22, 2011

Work your heart out,

Get no thanks;

Wages scarfed up

By the banks.

You may have noticed that laws governing you and me tend to be rather rigidly enforced, whereas laws governing banking and finance are more loosey-goosey. Word is this has something to do with us little guys not putting enough money into political campaigns, which the big guys do. Is that too cynical?

At any rate, the officials anointed to run the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and White House advisory panels all seem to be from Wall Street, not groups out to make the industry more accountable to us consumers. It makes little difference whether a Democrat or Republican occupies the White House.

As a result, wealthy citizens get treated with kid gloves while the rest of us have to toe the mark. Even among banks, the big players get bailed out while the small ones get closed out. In one example of that special care, for our benefit Congress passed a law capping credit card interest rates, but left plenty of time for the big banks to jack them up before it takes effect. Thanks a lot.

Similarly, Congress restricted cash bonuses for Wall Street, so now brokerages simply reward their employees with stock. New rules also require the behemoths to meet stricter home foreclosure standards, yet few inspectors are hired to enforce them.

One clue as to what still lies in wait for us hapless consumers was recently divulged by Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL), the new chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. In a moment of careless candor, he observed, "Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks."

The Republicans' primary tactic has been prohibiting the use of any funds to enforce existing reforms. This scheme is an especially hot topic in health care, and now looms grimly over financial controls as well.

Many recent reforms were the product of last year's much-publicized Dodd-Frank law. It plugged up numerous banking loopholes but still left plenty unfilled. Since the Democrats still control a Senate majority, the new House leadership may not have much success reopening those recent plugs. So their new game is simply to leave them underfunded.

Some of those remaining loopholes protect local car dealers and community banks. These were purposely left out of the law so that they could keep on swindling us with fine print. I suppose it should be comforting to know that it's not only the national players who get to do that.

Meanwhile, at the higher echelons of business, there are other disturbing changes. More and more major corporations, including some banks, are no longer even publicly owned. Vast private pots of cash from hedge funds and oil sheikdoms have scooped them up, thus lowering their disclosure requirements. Losing this big chunk of publicly traded business might be one reason why a German company is buying out the New York Stock Exchange. There just aren't as many transactions to take a percentage of anymore.

So as the United States, like Great Britain before us, gradually abandons its manufacturing and service sectors, it focuses more on big finance. That's where the fancy business school grads go nowadays. The big money lurks in schemes and scams -- and in lobbying, making sure they stay protected from government meddling. These big guys are so malicious they even have the nerve to overcharge our soldiers. Banks are now bought and sold like Monopoly properties with a few slick folks at the top siphoning off millions while laying off workers. Better we should all join a credit union.

William A. Collins, an OtherWords columnist, is a former Connecticut State lawmaker and the former mayor of Norwalk.