Thursday, April 13, 2017

NEVER FORGET




Irwin Schiff
Irwin Allen Schiff was an American tax protester known for writing and promoting literature in which he claimed the income tax in the United States is illegal and unconstitutional. Wikipedia
BornFebruary 24, 1928, New Haven, CT
DiedOctober 16, 2015, Fort Worth, TX IN PRISON


Robert Louis Schulz
the Founder and Chairman of We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education and We the People Congress, is a constitutional activist with a decades-long focus on holding government accountable to the Constitution, through the First Amendment Right to Petition.


Peter Schiff standing with the enemy of the people

America : Freedom to Fascism


Theft By Deception Deciphering The Federal Income Tax (Full Length)





 Documentory


NO REDRESS PDF



C-SPAN VIDEO OF HEARING



REASONS FOR PETITION



DOCUMENTED PETITION



Sunday, September 4, 2016

Taxation worldwide soon to be controlled by Rome

TaxationEdit

See also: FATF Blacklist

Indonesians may soon be hiding their Ferraris - they have a graft-busting new minister http://bloom.bg/2bMRcbj via @business
The OECD publishes and updates a model tax convention that serves as a template for bilateral negotiations regarding tax coordination and cooperation. This model is accompanied by a set of commentaries that reflect OECD-level interpretation of the content of the model convention provisions. In general, this model allocates the primary right to tax to the country from which capital investment originates (i.e., the home, or resident country) rather than the country in which the investment is made (the host, or source country). As a result, it is most effective as between two countries with reciprocal investment flows (such as among the OECD member countries), but can be very unbalanced when one of the signatory countries is economically weaker than the other (such as between OECD and non-OECD pairings).
Since 1998, the OECD has led a charge against harmful tax practices, principally targeting the activities of tax havens (while principally accepting the policies of its member countries, which would tend to encourage tax competition). These efforts have been met with mixed reaction: The primary objection is the sanctity of tax policy as a matter of sovereign entitlement.[36] The OECD maintains a "blacklist" of countries it considers uncooperative in the drive for transparency of tax affairs and the effective exchange of information, officially called "The List of Uncooperative Tax Havens".[37] In May 2009, all remaining countries were removed from the list.[38]
On 22 October 2008, at an OECD meeting in Paris, 17 countries led by France and Germany decided to draw up a new blacklist of tax havens. The OECD has been asked to investigate around 40 new tax havens in the world where undeclared revenue is hidden and that host many of the non-regulated hedge funds that have come under fire during the 2008 financial crisis. Germany, France, and other countries called on the OECD to specifically add Switzerland to a blacklist of countries that encourage tax fraud.[39]
On October 29, 2014, in Berlin, during the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes, all OECD and G20 countries, as well as most major international financial centres, signed a “multilateral competent authority agreement” that will activate the automatic sharing of financial data for tax purposes.[40][41] Under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), the United States will automatically exchange information with other countries beginning in 2015. In 2017, 58 jurisdictions of the "early adopters"—the UK, Spain, France, Portugal, Cyprus, Malta, Germany, Italy, Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, Gibraltar, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands, Ireland, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, San Marino, Seychelles, Argentina, and South Africa—start to share information automatically. In 2018, another 35 jurisdictions, including Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Brazil, Brunei, Canada, China, Hong Kong, Monaco, Qatar, Russia, Singapore, United Arab Emirates, and Switzerland begin sharing information.

PublishingEdit

The OECD publishes books, reports, statistics, working papers and reference materials. All titles and databases published since 1998 can be accessed via OECD iLibrary.
The OECD Library & Archives collection dates from 1947, including records from the Committee for European Economic Co-operation (CEEC) and the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation (OEEC), predecessors of today's OECD. External researchers can consult OECD publications and archival material on the OECD premises by appointment.

BooksEdit

The OECD releases between 300 and 500 books each year. The publications are updated accordingly to the OECD iLibrary. Most books are published in English and French. The OECD flagship[vague] titles include:
  • The OECD Economic Outlook, published twice a year. It contains forecast and analysis of the economic situation of the OECD member countries.
  • The Main Economic Indicators, published monthly. It contains a large selection of timely statistical indicators.
  • The OECD Factbook, published yearly and available online, as an iPhone app and in print. The Factbook contains more than 100 economic, environmental and social indicators, each presented with a clear definition, tables and graphs. The Factbook mainly focuses on the statistics of its member countries and sometimes other major additional countries. It is freely accessible online and delivers all the data in Excel format via StatLinks.
  • The OECD Communications Outlook and the OECD Internet Economy Outlook (formerly the Information Technology Outlook), which rotate every year. They contain forecasts and analysis of the communications and information technology industries in OECD member countries and non-member economies.
  • In 2007 the OECD published Human Capital: How what you know shapes your life, the first book in the OECD Insightsseries. This series uses OECD analysis and data to introduce important social and economic issues to non-specialist readers. Other books in the series cover sustainable development, international trade and international migration.
All OECD books are available on the OECD iLibrary, the online bookshop or OECD Library & Archives.[n 1]

Friday, June 24, 2016

Just one area growing right now.  
https://www.realtyshares.com/campaign/outbrain7

REITS can be set up to not pay out for up to 30 years.

investment income is cash in your pocket

All property is protected from personal losses

You just can't do any of the maint or repairs yourself.

Once completed the REIT can be sold to other REITS

Valuations can be greater than actual present value

Mortgage and financial data can be protected from public disclosures


I like this site, lots of basic info

I don't like the crowd sourcing because of the high fees but for the sellers its a great way to build value without the risk of using investment firms.



All Rights Reserved 2016
- = - = - = - = - = - = - =
http://www.Wtptv.us
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ 

Monday, December 15, 2014


A U.S. Court Practically Declared Insider Trading Legal


Wednesday, December 10, 2014, was a big day for insider trading.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturned insider trading convictions of former hedge fund managers Todd Newman and Anthony Chiasson.
Not only did the appeals court reverse the much-publicized guilty verdicts against the two traders, its 28-page decision effectively rewrites the meaning of insider trading.
The immediate outcome of the decision not only affects the two hedge fund executives, other traders convicted of insider trading, and charged individuals who pled guilty, it will also change how traders use inside information to their benefit in the future.
The court decision is as surprising as it is profound…

This Changes Trading Forever

Because the surprise unanimous appeals court decision immediately vacated the May 2013 judgments of conviction against Newman and Chiasson on charges of conspiracy to commit insider trading and insider trading in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, sections 10(b) and 32 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, SEC Rules 10b‐5 and 10b5‐2, and 18 U.S.C. § 2.
Adding insult to injury for Preet Bharara, the Manhattan U.S. Attorney who oversaw the six-week jury trial, which was heard in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District and presided over by Judge Richard J. Sullivan, the appeals court dismissed the entire suit with prejudice.
According to IllinoisLegalAid.org, "In the formal legal world a court case that is dismissed with prejudice means that it is dismissed permanently. A case dismissed with prejudice is over and done with, once and for all, and can't be brought back to court."
Now, not only won't there be any re-trial based on the appeals court decision, the only way similarly derived convictions will stand up on appeal will be if the matter makes it to the Supreme Court.
What happened – and how it happened – matters.

An Impossibly High Bar Is Set

The bottom line: As far as the appeals court's ruling, Judge Richard Sullivan gave the jurors hearing the case against both traders erroneous instructions. The appeals court said that he set the bar too low, which made it easy for jurors who deliberated for two days to reach a guilty verdict.
But the real bombshell in the Appeals Court decision is what it says is required to prove insider trading.
Insiders at Dell Inc. (formerly Nasdaq: DELL) and Nvidia Corp. (Nasdaq: NVDA) passed along information about what was going on in their companies to some contacts, which made its way through some fuzzy Wall Street "intelligence networks" (in reality, glorified gossip channels papered over with research notes) to analysts, who transmitted the information to analysts who worked for Newman and Chiasson. They traded on the information and made about $72 million.
While Judge Sullivan told jurors it was enough to show the traders knew the information they traded on resulted from a breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the tipsters at Dell and Nvidia, it didn't matter if the tipsters received benefits as a result of their tips. The appeals court wholeheartedly disagreed.
The new interpretation of what constitutes insider trading effectively says, a prosecutor must prove that the "tip-ee" knew that the "tipster" committed a breach of their fiduciary duty in disclosing inside information, and that the "tip-ee" knew that the "tipster" would gain a tangible reward of "some consequence."
Only one of the tipsters in the case received any gain. And that was merely "career advice." As such, the appeals court determined that there was no gain of any consequence, and further, that the traders didn't get the information first-hand.

Experts Despair of Ever Fixing the Problem

I spoke to New York securities attorney Bill Singer – editor of the widely followedBrokeandBroker.com site, who was formerly on the regulatory side of securities lawyering but now represents broker-dealers, brokers, traders, and their customers – for his reaction to the decision.
"This is one of those rare cases that is actually historic," Singer said. "The appeals court decision largely eviscerates any further or future prosecution of similar cases."
The bar for the burden of proof has been raised Singer told me. "Now there are two hurdles," he explained. "It has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the tipper knew he was breeching his fiduciary duty and would benefit, meaning probably receive compensation, andit must be proved beyond that elusive reasonable doubt, that the tip-ee knew the tipster was breeching his duty and knew that the tipster would benefit through some tangible reward. All that, beyond a reasonable doubt."
So, if the bar to prove insider trading has been raised, I asked the securities expert, is there an easier way under it now?
"Here's my cynical response," Singer replied, "This provides a roadmap to tipsters and tip-ees on how to distance themselves from bumping into the existing statutes."
He's not alone in recognizing the fuzzy legal ramifications of many of the statutes governing Wall Street.
Judge Barrington D. Parker, writing the appeals court decision on behalf of the panel that included Judge Ralph K. Winter Jr. and Judge Peter W. Hall, said, "Although the government might like the law to be different, nothing in the law requires a symmetry of information in the nation's securities markets."
As if there wasn't enough asymmetry already dividing the haves from the have-nots, there's now a higher bar for fleet-footed, "in-the-know" traders to waltz right under.
SHAH GILANI

About the Author

Shah Gilani is the Event Trading Specialist for Money Map Press. He provides specific trading recommendations in Capital Wave Forecast, where he predicts gigantic "waves" of money forming and shows you how to play them for the biggest gains. In Short-Side Fortunes, Shah shows the "little guy" how to make massive size gains – sometimes in a single day – by flipping large asset classes like stocks, bonds, commodities, ETFs and more. He also writes our most talked-about publication, Wall Street Insights & Indictments, where he reveals how Wall Street's high-stakes game is really played.