Offshore Asset Protection BLOG - Bob Bauman

Property Rights Are Civil Rights

Several years ago the chairman of the Sovereign Society, Jack Pugsley, in a commentary entitled "It All Starts With Property Rights" wrote the following: The feelings that drive us to defend ourselves against government oppression are an expression of our innate compulsion to control our own property. Each of us shares the feeling that it is unjust and an outrage for our hard-earned wealth to be taken from us without our consent.

Jack went on to observe: The Declaration of Independence suggests that the Founding Fathers sensed this aspect of human nature. It argued that all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, of course, are all aspects of property.

The long train of abuses and usurpations that drove the Founding Fathers to rebel was triggered by the same genes that give rise to your rage when someone burglarizes your home, steals your car or defrauds you. Those genes are equally activated when that attack comes from government.

Kelo v. New London

Jack's sentiments were written two years before the U.S. Supreme Court, in a shocking 5-to-4 decision, greatly expand local governments’ power of eminent domain to take private property for public use. The 2005 case, Kelo v. New London, was one of the most controversial property rights cases in years.

 
To the surprise of the great majority of Americans, the high court ruled that it was permissible for government to take private property, not only for public use, but to turn it over to private developers as part of a plan to bolster the local economy.

The decision was widely criticized, spurring lawmakers in 43 states across the country to adopt statutes to prevent similar uses of eminent domain in their states.

Joint Power Grab

The situation that gave rise to the Kelo case was a classic example of the little guys falling victim to the combined power of a major corporate business and politicians eager to please that company.

It seems government that bails out banks with trillions of tax dollars, can't keep the same banks and credit card companies from raping card holders, allows financial groups to pay billions in bonuses after getting tax bailouts, also has the right to take our homes and property and give it to political buddies. (See Betrayal for an interesting read)

The city council had created the New London Development Corporation to buy up the nine acre neighborhood and find a developer to replace it with an "urban village" that would draw shoppers and tourists to the area. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, (below) one of the four dissenters in the case, called New London’s plan "a costly urban renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation." 

Economic development officials in Connecticut used that plan and a package of tax breaks and financial incentives to lure the giant drug company, Pfizer, to build a headquarters for its research division on 26 acres nearby.

With an agreement that it would pay just one-fifth of its property taxes for the first 10 years, Pfizer spent $294 million on a 750,000-square-foot complex that opened in 2001. Scores of citizens who lived in the adjoining nine acre area were forced to sell to the city; their homes leveled, leaving what is now a waste land. Susette Kelo, a nurse, (below) fought for her home all the way to the Supreme Court -- and lost.

Pfizer Scews New London

Last week Pfizer announced it would pull 1,400 jobs out of New London within two years and move most of them a few miles away to a campus it owns in Groton, Conn., as a cost cutting measure.

It would leave behind empty the city’s biggest office complex -- and the adjacent swath of barren land that was cleared of dozens of homes (including Ms. Kelo's) to make room for a hotel, stores and condominiums that were never built.

"Look what they did," Michael Cristofaro, a resident, said. "They stole our home for economic development. It was all for Pfizer, and now they get up and walk "

Scott G. Bullock, senior attorney at the Institute for Justice,a libertarian group in Arlington, Va., that represented the landowners in New London, said Pfizer’s announcement "really shows the folly of these plans that use massive corporate welfare and abuse eminent domain for private development. They oftentimes fail to live up to expectations."

Obama's National Property Grabs

In The Audacity of Hope, his autobiographical exploration of American values and politics, President Obama praised private property as being at the core of our constitutional rights in America.

Yet in a 2006 Senate speech opposing President Bush's nomination of California State Justice Janice Rogers Brown, a an African American and a conservative, to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, Senator Obama attacked her, saying: "When it comes to laws protecting corporations and private property, she has decided that those laws should be interpreted broadly."

He harshly criticized Judge Brown, saying she believed "...you can't regulate the free market because it is going to constrain people's use of their private property. Keep in mind that same judicial philosophy was the underpinning of Dred Scott, the ruling that overturned the Missouri Compromise and said that it was unconstitutional to forbid slavery from being imported into the free States."

In 2001, then State Senator Obama complained about the civil rights movement’s failure to bring about the redistribution of wealth. 

 
During his 2008 presidential campaign all America saw and heard candidate Obama slip and tell Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher (above) that government needed to "spread the wealth around."

Obama Proposals Confiscate Property

In many ways the Obama agenda seeks to confiscate wealth from earners and give it to non-earners.

The Obama health care bills impose several new taxes. The entire idea behind this "health care reform" is to have those who already have health insurance and are satisfied with it pay for health care for those who don’t want it or can’t afford it.

That single agenda item alone illustrates the Obama administration’s antagonism to our most sacred of private property: our money.

And it is not just more taxes that confiscate our property. Now there is serious discussion about confiscating all private retirements plans, Keoghs, 401ks, Roths -- and dumping them into a government managed scheme.

More Power to Seize

The pending financial regulatory bills Obama has proposed would give the U.S. government broad authority to seize private financial institutions supposedly on the verge of collapse to keep them from harming the economy.

The seizure power would extend to a broad array of financial companies, apparently including private hedge funds as well as bank holding companies. Is it not enough that under Obama the government (taxpayers) have become major owners of General Motors, Bank of America, Citibank et al?

A Different Kind of President

Throughout American history, our leaders have understood that private property rights are key to the survival of the individual.

If you take a person's property, you take away their livelihood. If you take property, you attack their spirit. From the day our nation was born, the preservation of private property has been considered a priority of law.

Through taxes and government controls Barack Obama appears to want to use the law to destroy private property.

This is what he means, when he openly attacks businesses large and small, when he insists that there must be limits on what you can earn and keep and pass on to your family when you pass away, when he makes political deals with insurance and drug companies to get their support for his health proposals.

This president wants his government to control your private property, your income and your assets.

Sovereign Society Credo

One of the basic tenets in the Sovereign Society Credo states: "Every individual has the natural right to keep, control, and dispose of his or her property."

That fundamental natural right is now under serious attack, not just in the parochial New London city council, but in the highest offices of the White House and the United States Congress.

The Passport Book - 7th Edition

If you want you want to discover a new, freedom loving place in which to pitch your tent, deposit your cash or protect your assets, the seventh edition of my best-selling publication, The Passport Book, is now available. You can get your copy now. Here's a sample of the contents.

The Sovereign Society is a recognized voice in the complex offshore world.  Join the Sovereign Society and keep informed.

Why Switzerland Is Still Free and America Is Not

My guest columnist today is Ron Holland (left), a long time friend of the Sovereign Society and of our founder, the late Bob Kephart. We often talk about expatriation as a way of escaping from the current mess in U.S. government. Ron suggets secession may be the answer. Ron [send him mail] works in Zurich and is a co-editor of the Swiss Mountain Vision Newsletter.

The American Time magazine article headline asks, "Will Switzerland Vote to Ban Minarets on Mosques?"

Swiss citizens are becoming concerned about the threat that Islam presents to their traditional culture, economy and religious institutions. As an American, I know how I would vote were I Swiss but the decision will be made by the Swiss electorate as they have this referendum right on all issues.

In Switzerland, the people still rule and have the ultimate right to decide decisions above the government or parliament. Through the right of referendum they can cancel legislation and with the initiative they can pass or create legislative action on issues parliament refuses to act upon.

The bias and closed statist views shown in the article is business as usual for the U.S. media elites out to protect the American political establishment and are so evident in this headline and article. It isn’t the question they asked but rather the question they didn’t dare ask is the "700-lb gorilla in the room."

Quoting from the article, "Critics say the SVP, the largest party in Switzerland's coalition government, has taken advantage of the country's unique brand of direct democracy to push its populist, anti-immigrant agenda on the Swiss electorate. Citizens have the right to propose new laws in Switzerland – the only thing they need to force a nationwide vote on an initiative is a petition of 100,000 signatures."

The question not asked is why doesn’t the American electorate have oversight over legislation and unpopular government regulations in the United States like in Switzerland?

Imagine if 4% of the American voters signed a petition requiring a nationwide vote "yea or nay" on the banking bailouts, going to war in Iraq, auditing the Federal Reserve, nationalized health care or on the trillions in new Washington debt added because of the financial meltdown. The United States would still be a decentralized republic with limited government had we had the political option to hold back Washington and the special interests.

How America would be different if we had Swiss-style political rights to restrain government where the people rule instead of the special interests. Imagine an America where the billions in graft and political influence that control Congress could still buy legislation but not ultimate control if we as a people could overrule their actions.

What if the will of the people still ultimately controlled the political system and direction with true limited government at the federal, state and local level?

Imagine the American electorate overriding Congress and demanding a strong dollar backed by real gold reserves, an audit of the Federal Reserve, a rollback of the bailouts, a declaration of war for foreign military intervention, the abolishment of the PATRIOT Act and a return to banking privacy.

Yes, a Swiss political party (The Swiss Peoples Party) promotes a nationalist agenda to the Swiss voters and they will ultimately decide in referendum yes or no on the issue. This is currently impossible in the United States but Swiss direct democracy and limited confederation government have worked in Switzerland for hundreds of years.

This is far superior to the two-party monopoly in America where the elites controlling both parties can push their self-serving agendas without restraint. Currently, short of the Tenth Amendment movement, state nullification or outright state secession, there is no real effective way to push back against Washington.

Until the American people can find a way to restrain the Federal government, the bureaucracy and the judiciary, the best place for Americans to secure and safeguard their wealth is outside their own country.

Switzerland is one of the best jurisdictions to consider because their political system has preserved the rights and freedoms we once had as Americans. Still the ultimate problem for Americans is the necessity to restore our liberties at home because history has shown that wealth without liberty is only a temporary condition at best.

I say, it is time to take a real look at direct democracy in the United States or else Americans who value their property and liberties will have little choice but to first transfer their wealth to safety outside the US as it will be lost in the coming crash of treasury debt and the dollar.

Next we must stand and fight the Washington leviathan through the political tools of the Tenth Amendment and John C. Calhoun’s political ideal of nullification both of which the Feds will probably just ignore. Our final democratic political tool is to exercise the political right of state-by-state secession with all the political and historical baggage this entails.

Trust me, Swiss style direct democracy in the United States would be an easier way to control Washington and the special interests, but we only have a few years before the Washington debt and dollar collapse is upon us.

Therefore I’ll close with a question. Is anybody here for secession?

Copyright © 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

The Passport Book - 7th Edition

If you want you want to discover a new, freedom loving place in which to pitch your tent, deposit your cash or protect your assets, the seventh edition of my best-selling publication, The Passport Book, is now available. You can get your copy now. Here's a sample of the contents.

The Sovereign Society is a recognized voice in the complex offshore world.  Join the Sovereign Society and keep informed.

Has Anyone Read the Copenhagen Agreement?

That was the headline on an alarming commentary in The Wall Street Journal on October 28th. The subhead reads: U.N. plans for a new 'government' are scary.

Americans (and those from every nation) who love their country should indeed read this amazing, alarming document. And when you do read the 181 pages of this draft "United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change" you’re in for some nasty surprises.

Americans in the Dark

If you haven't heard about it, that's because none of our otherwise talkative political leaders have told us what the drafters have already put together for national leaders to consider and possibly sign at a global conference on "climate change" in Copenhagen Dec. 14 - 21.

Enter Lord Christopher Monckton (below). The UK Conservative Party member and former adviser to U.K. prime minister Margaret Thatcher gave an address at Bethel University in St. Paul, Minnesota, last month that had made quite a video hit.

So far there have been more than one million hits on the YouTube post of his address. It deserves millions more because Lord Monckton warns that the aim of the Copenhagen draft treaty is to set up a super world transnational "government" on a scale no one has ever before seen. He asks the valid question: "Is Obama poised to cede U.S. sovereignty to the UN?" You can guess the answer.

Hidden from View

Lord Monckton himself only became aware of the extraordinary powers to be vested in this new world government when a friend found an obscure UN web site, searched through several layers of links and discovered a document that isn't even called the draft "treaty." Instead, it's labeled a "Note by the Secretariat."

Environmentalist of all stripes from green on down (or up) are demanding that President Barack Obama go to Copenhagen and personally lead the battle for a supposedly cleaner planet and the world government they think is a must.

You will recall that the last time President Obama made a trip to Copenhagen was in October -- his sudden, last minute effort to promote Chicago's 2016 Olympic bid -- only to see his home city fail to even make the first cut.

The Usual Suspects

At last count, about 40 national leaders have said they'll be there, including the hapless British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the frenetic French President Nicolas Sarkozy, along with scores of politicians from the developing nations that see the possibility of billions in reparations (read more foreign aid).

Although the work of the summit will be carried out by bureaucrats, the mere presence of heads of state in the room in Copenhagen could add momentum to what many see as faltering negotiations.

Obama to the Rescue

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, fresh from an election victory, says she wont be there unless there is a real chance of getting something done. President Barack Obama likewise set conditions for his attendance, telling Reuters on Monday that he would attend if his presence could help clinch an international deal.

My bet is Obama the Orator will be there alright, if only to satisfy his super ego and deliver yet another of those stentorian addresses that many Europeans love.

Read and Act Now

I urge you to view the Monckton video, read the WSJ article and the treaty text, then email your U.S. senators (who have the constitutional power to ratify pr reject treaties, but only by a 2/3 vote).

Let them know that you are made as Hell and you don't want President Obama to destroy the United States Constitution he and all congressmen swore to uphold. 

 

The Sovereign Society is a recognized voice in the complex offshore world.  Join the Sovereign Society and keep informed.

The Price of Freedom

I often write about freedom and liberty, but usually in terms of threats to and the reduction of both of these precious commodities.

Tomorrow, Veterans' Day in the United States, is a time for each of us to focus on the price more than a million human beings have paid over the centuries to win and preserve our American freedoms.

And this day should remind us of the need to take up and continue the unending battle in which they gave their "last full measure of devotion."

The first Veterans Day, (then called Armistice Day), commemorated the armistice at 11:00 A.M. on November 11, 1918, ending the bloody First World War in which those American "Yanks" played such an important part.

Armistice Day is the anniversary of the symbolic end of World War I. It commemorates the armistice signed between the Allies and Germany at Rethondes, France, for the cessation of hostilities on the Western Front. The agreement took effect at eleven o'clock in the morning — the "eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month".

The Price so far Paid

In America's bloodiest conflict, the Civil War, (or the War of Northern Aggression, as some of my southern friends still call it), many more soldiers died in a few hours at the battles at Antietam Creek, Gettysburg or Fredericksburg than have fallen during the entire Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

But there is a rough and final equality about every one of the dead, from the Revolutionary War and all other wars, right down until this very day.

These Americans, young and old, died before their time, much of their promise unrealized, and in the service of their country. President Lincoln at Gettysburg uttered a string of negatives - "we can not dedicate; we can not consecrate; we can not hallow this ground" - to express our inability ever to understand fully or recognize sacrifice of this degree.

Lincoln's Sage Advice for Us

But Lincoln did suggest that we ought to at least make the attempt to remember, understand and rededicate ourselves to the cause for which they died.

How many Americans today know and understand the history that bought them their freedom?

It's been many Veterans Days since this country felt truly mortally threatened, notwithstanding the current economic difficulties.

The horrors of the 20th century wars are receding into distant memory, though 9/11 and Iraq brought some new ones, as did a Muslim terrorist's insane massacre at Fort Hood, Texas only days ago.

Despite the subsequent wars and security alerts, the call to duty and service remains distant and unreal to too many Americans. Fort Hood and 9/11 help to bring the threat home.

As we enter this holiday season, remember those who have died in the Iraq and Afgan wars these last six years and be reminded that, for some among us, the call to duty was immediate and real. And we should honor that service with our own re-dedication to the principles and the country that so many have given their lives to defend.

As former president and founding father John Adams once said, "You will never know, how much it cost the present Generation, to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make a good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the pains to preserve it."

Offshore Freedom

Cabo San Lucas, Baja California Sur, Mexico: That's from whence I am reporting today, the second day of the four day Sovereign Society Offshore Advantage Seminar at the Westin Resort & Spa (below).

Located at the southern very tip of Mexico's Baja Peninsula, our resort hotel enjoys a dramatic site at Land's End, high above where the Sea of Cortes meets the Pacific Ocean. Looking out over the blue-green ocean in the late afternoon we have seen huge whales leisurely swimming along with schools of dolphins as escorts. Deep sea fishing is a major sport here. 

Los Cabos, as it is known, is unique in its impressive desert landscapes of pinks, reds and browns, its very dry climate, with endless cactus plants framed by cinnamon colored mountains, and bordered by miles of white sandy beach and clear, deep azure waters.

If I sound as if I am an impressed tourist, that's because I am. I have visited other Mexican resorts, Cancun, Puerto Vallarta and Acapulco, but Los Cabos exceeds them all in beauty and unspoiled grandeur.

So much for the location.

Here for Business

There are over four hundred people attending our seminar, including 330 attendees, plus professional speakers and staff. During four days the attendees learn from experts about every aspect of offshore activities -- banking, trusts, family foundations, foreign residence and second passports, investing, currencies and asset protection -- as well as how to comply with U.S. offshore tax and reporting laws.

While many of the attendees are U.S. persons, there are people here from as far away as Switzerland, Denmark, Germany, the Isle of Man, Panama, New Zealand, Australia, Hong Kong, Canada, Austria and many other nations.

Unusual Zeal

Professionals in attendance, attorneys, investment managers, bankers, foreign citizenship advisors -- all have remarked on the palpable air of concern and determination shown by all the attendees. I have seen and heard it in many conversations I have had.

These good people share my fear about what is happening to the United States -- Obama's march to socialized medicine, the ignoring of the Constitution by Congress and the executive, the piling up of trillions in deficit spending -- and these people are determined, for safety's sake, to place some of their assets offshore, if not themselves.

Unparalleled Concern

In the more than 10 years of the existence of the Sovereign Society I have never before seen people at our meetings as determined as these folks are to follow a course of action toward financial and personal safety -- and they mean to act now.

Yesterday the chairman of the Sovereign Society, Jack Pugsley, (left) and I both delivered addresses describing the perilous state of America and the world. Believe me the people here understand the threats to, not just their wealth, but more importantly, to their freedom and the futures of their children and grandchildren.

We made clear once again that we believe that…

• Individual liberty is a prerequisite to prosperity.
• Liberty exists when every individual has the right to keep, control and dispose of his or her justly-acquired property.
• Individuals and their assets are not the property of government.

You Can See & Hear It All

Now, in the past we've made audio recordings available for a fee. But this year, we're doing something completely different.
The management has decided to give you the valuable content of this seminar in Los Cabos FREE… not just for the 2009 Academy - but for every future event we hold.

I have summed up the details in this attached letter. Give it a look. That way, if you're interested, you can get a video/audio copy of all that occurs here at Los Cabos soon after the conclusion of the Offshore Advantage Academy.

Obama, Democrats Radical Plan to Curb Offshore Freedoms

As is well known, for several years offshore tax havens and Americans who dare to exercise their right to engage in legal offshore financial activity, have been under continuing attack by left wing, redistributionist Democrats, including then senator, now President Barack Obama.

Now, with Obama's personal blessing, congressional Democrats have introduced a radical legislative proposal that would give the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) new weapons to "detect, deter and discourage" the use of foreign bank and other financial accounts that might be used for avoiding U.S. taxes.

The questionable basis for this latest leftist assault on Americans' personal and financial privacy is the unproven allegation that millions of Americans are evading billions of dollars in taxes by hiding cash and activities offshore.

I have commented on these phony numbers games before. These repeated charges amount to what Josef Goebbles called "the Big Lie".

FACTA

The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, (FACTA)introduced in The U.S. Senate and House on October 27, blends proposals in President Obama’s 2010 budget, as well as Senator Carl Levin's (D-Mich) infamous"Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act" and legislation drafted by Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) earlier this year.

It is co-sponsored by Sen. Baucus (D-MT) and the tax-dodging House Ways and Means Committee Chairman, Charlie "I forgot" Rangel (D-NY), (left).

Under this extremely punitive bill, all foreign financial institutions, banks, foreign trusts, private foundations and foreign corporations could be forced into providing information about U.S. account holders, trust grantors, and American owners associated with these legal entities.

As if they did not exist, the legislation totally ignores the current extensive reporting requirements of federal law that already apply to all such entities.

Go After The Rich

This week IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman also announced a stepped up campaign against high net worth individuals he thinks are engaged in interna (below) tional tax evasion. "We will take a unified look at the entire web of business entities controlled by a high wealth individual," Shulman said "The IRS high wealth unit will focus on trusts, real estate investments, privately held companies and other business entities controlled by rich individuals."

The U.S. government served subpoenas on wealthy individuals in recent days in the New York area, targeting those who may have evaded taxes using offshore accounts at Swiss bank UBS.

30% Tax on Offshore Banks

If enacted the FACTA would impose a 30% withholding tax on payments to foreign financial institutions and other entities unless they acknowledge the existence of offshore accounts to the IRS and disclose relevant information including account ownership, balances and amounts moving in and out of the accounts.

With its usual guess work, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) claims the legislation would bring in an additional $8.5 billion in taxes over a 10-year period, (a far cry from the supposed $100 billion a year Levin repeatedly claims is lost to alleged offshore tax evasion).

Obama All for It

In a canned statement from the White House President Obama, who during his campaign said he favored "spreading around" other Americans wealth, said: "The legislation introduced today would put a stop to billions of dollars worth of abuses. I look forward to working with Congress to turn these proposals into law so that honest Americans no longer shoulder the burden of the few individuals and businesses that put profit before responsibility."

 
If you want to dig into the gory details of the new proposal, you find the text of the bill here and its technical description here. They both make freightening reading. 

Peeved Levin Reacts

This slightly less radical legislation does not have the endorsement of Capitol Hill's leading anti-tax haven demagogue, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), (below) who said he doesn't think the bill goes far enough.

 That may be because it omits the ridiculous blacklist of scores of nations included in Levin's Anti-Tax Haven Act, as well as many punitive anti-tax haven powers his bill would have given to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. The tax dodging hypocrite Geithner, who failed to pay taxes for several years until he was named to his post, praised the bill.

The die-hard Levin told reporters: "When their committees move to markup, I hope to work with my colleagues to strengthen the Baucus-Rangel bill by adding some of the measures from the offshore tax bill I’ve introduced."

Offshore Reaction

As a result of numerous anti-offshore policies of the IRS and the Obama administration, as well as the UBS bank scandal, many Swiss and other offshore banks have closed existing accounts of Americans and have turned away new U.S. applicants.

Switzerland's oldest bank, Bank Wegelin in Saint Gallen, was typical in not only confirming its "no Americans" policy, but in announcing it would not longer invest in American investments for itself or its clients.

Another Freedom Destroyed

One can only guess what may be the reaction of offshore bankers to the threat of a 30% tax to force release of client information that would clearly violate Swiss bank secrecy laws, as well as financial privacy laws in many other countries such as Panama, Austria, Singapore and Hong Kong.

If this bill becomes law, it may well block the ability of all Americans to bank offshore, simply because no offshore bank will put up with these unprecedented bullying tactics by the IRS. There are plenty of other people of wealth whose governments do not think they can impose their rule on the entire world.

Stay tuned for developments.

 

The Passport Book - 7th Edition

If you want you want to discover a new, freedom loving place in which to pitch your tent, deposit your cash or protect your assets, the seventh edition of my best-selling publication, The Passport Book, is now available. You can get your copy now. Here's a sample of the contents.

The Sovereign Society is a recognized voice in the complex offshore world.  Join the Sovereign Society and keep informed.

British Labor Declares Financial War on U.K. Offshore Havens

Wallowing in trillions of pounds sterling of government debt, suffering an unprecedented recession prolonged by its leftist policies, with banks propped up by £1.2 trillion (US$1.7 trillion) in bailouts taken from angry taxpayers, the British Labour Party, now in its political death throws, has decided to destroy the United Kingdom's offshore financial centers.

In doing some hope that it may precipitate a constitutional crisis the gravity of which has not been since the abdication of Edward VIII in 1936.

Keep in mind that Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man are not part of the UK but are self-governing dependencies of the Crown. This means they have their own directly elected legislative assemblies, administrative, fiscal and legal systems and their own courts of law. The Crown Dependencies are not represented in the UK Parliament and UK legislation does not extend to them.

Brown's Tax Haven Ploy

Earlier this month I gave you a detailed account of the shabby treatment the Labour government has accorded the U.K. offshore financial centers, even though these centers have led the way in offshore financial reforms well before the current OECD blacklisting attacks.

In the midst of the worst British recession in 30 years, faltering Prime Minister Gordon Brown (left) has been demanding “the end of tax havens,” demagogically blaming them for the global economic downturn which had its root causes in the City of London, in Wall Street and elsewhere.

Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling, (below) announced a review of the Crown dependencies and overseas territories in his pre-budget report last year, three weeks after he made disturbing comments to a Treasury select committee about the Isle of Man being little more than a “tax haven sitting in the Irish Sea”.
 
No to the Cayman Islands

The anti-Manx action appears to be part of a larger plan of actin aimed against all U.K. offshore financial centers.

A few weeks ago the Labour government refused to assist the Cayman Islands, a British overseas territory (read colony), with a budget shortfall, in effect ordering the islands to sink or swim on their own financially. In the past London under both political parties has accepted a duty to support its colonial possessions in times of need. The Foreign Office refused the Cayman Islands permission to raise a £280m (US$459m) loan until it has levied new taxes.

Attack on the Isle of Man

Now comes Mr. Darling and announces that, without any negotiations, and with only 30 days notice, the Labour government is cutting the annual budget of the Crown dependency of the Isle of Man by 24%, causing what Manx leaders call an “unprecedented” financial crisis.

British observers saw this as one of Gordon Brown's harshest ways to deal with the Isle of Man's status as a "tax haven" and they said it has the potential to change life for the worse on the island in the future.

London slashed £140 million (US$229.5 m) off the tax haven’s £572 million (US$938 m) annual budget. And they did so unilaterally. The sudden cut eventualy could amount to about half the total Manx government budget. It also ended an existing Health Care Agreement that provided services to the island's people.

The island’s chief minister, Tony Brown, (left) told Tynwald, the Manx parliament, that the deal imposed by the UK was non-negotiable. Mr Brown added: “This situation is clearly extremely serious for the island and unprecedented."

Violation of 400 Year Old Treaty

This appears to be in violation of a 400-year-old customs revenue-sharing agreement between the Isle of Man and the UK. The annual payments by the UK are not a subsidy, but revenue sharing based on a formula that pays back some of the British VAT collected on the island. Locals claim that in the past the island has received less than it pays in VAT, and that certainly will be the case now.

Left-wing British anti-tax haven groups cheered Labour's abrupt action and claimed it would put an end to what they claimed, without proof, is massive tax evasion on the Isle of Man.

Credit Rating at Issue

Having suddenly lost 24% of its planned revenues, the credit rating company Moody's has placed the island’s credit rating under review. The current Triple-A status may be downgraded because of the 24% reduction. This could have a significant effect on life on the island and ultimately impact upon its status as a leading tax haven.

Banking, high caliber legal, accounting, insurance and other financial services are available on the island. In spite of their ancient history, banking on the offshore islands is modern, sophisticated and user-friendly. Total deposits in the 47 banks in the Isle of Man banking system in 2009 exceeded £98 billion (US$156.5 billion).

Good Record

Only recently I wrote an article here extolling the superior status of the Isle of Man and its management as an offshore financial center.

I noted that  the island's free market  approach had reaped rewards. The island has enjoyed 26 consecutive years of growth. It has no national debt, an unemployment rate of just 2.2% cent, and has avoided the global recession. Per capita income 24% lower than Britain’s in 1996, is 18% higher now at about $35,000.

What Brown is trying to destroy is a well-regulated and universally recognized high quality offshore center for financial services.

History

The Isle of Man came under English control in the 14th century. During this period the Isle was dominated by the Stanley family, who also held the title of Earl of Derby, who had been given possession of Man by King Henry IV. In 1703 the Act of Settlement secured peasant rights and marked the beginning of a move away from feudal government.

In 1765 the British Crown secured greater control over the island paying a price of £70,000 without incorporating it into Great Britain, laying the basis for the island's status as a Crown dependency. In 1866 greater autonomy was restored to the island's parliament and a full transition to democracy began.

The Isle quickly developed as a finance center and tourist destination, becoming increasingly prosperous during the 20th century.

The Future

Perhaps the Isle of Man may wish to assert its constitutional independence in the face of this blatant violation of a 400 year old treaty -- especially since the Labour government has made clear its hostile intention to destroy the island's major source of income. 

Then too both the Isle of Man and the UK may be saved by the ascendency of a Conservative Party government in the 2010 elections. Labour is now trailing in all the polls.

Obama as Bad as Bush-Cheney

That was the headline on a column by Nat Hentoff, (below) a senior fellow at the Cato Instutute and a principled person whom I consider to be one the foremost civil libertarians in America today.

Sen. Russ Feingold, (D-Wis), the only U.S. senator who had the courage to vote against the PATRIOT Act when it was first adopted in 2001, has been battling the Federal Bureau of Investigation's expanded surveillance guidelines. He also has continued to fight to revise the unconstitutional PATRIOT Act, parts of which are now up for renewal in the U.S. Congress.

In the recent U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee review of the Act, Republicans senators protecting the Act, in a closed-door session, formed an odd alliance working with Obama administration officials on amendments blocking any major changes.

Then all but three Democrats, pressured by the Obama administration officials, voted for a watered-down "compromise" bill by Senators Patrick Leahy and Diane Feinstein. Feingold, Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and newly minted "Democrat" Arlen Specter (Pa.) had the courage to oppose the committee bill that with few exceptions, leaves the Act intact without any meaningful revisions.

Two Faced Obama

Obama, who as a candidate repeatedly attacked the PATRIOT Act and called for its revision in order to protect civil liberties now has abandoned that stance -- as he has so many of his glittering promises of change.

Instead Obama, a former professor of constitutional law, working with so-called "conservative" Republicans, thwarted attempts by Feingold to restore the constitutional civil liberties Bush's PATRIOT Act destroyed.

"In the end," Feingold says. "Democrats have to decide if they are going to stand up for the rights of the American people" or "allow the FBI to write our laws."

Policeman, Prosecutor, Judge & Jury

Hentoff quotes my former House colleague, Don Edwards (D-Ca). "No federal agency," said Congressman Edwards, "the CIA, the IRS, or the FBI, can be at the same time policeman, prosecutor, judge and jury. That is what constitutionally guaranteed due process is all about. It may sometimes be disorderly and unsatisfactory to some, but it is the essence of freedom."

The Constitution, Edwards continued, does not permit "federal interference" with Americans' speech or associations, and other such citizen constitutional rights, "except through the criminal justice system, armed with its ancient safeguards." Read that as meaning the PATRIOT Act.

A Solemn Oath

Apparently the Senate Republicans are not concerned about redressing the constitutional violations contained in the PATRIOT Act, a law that is the worst legislative attack on the Constitution since President John Adams and the 1789 Alien and Sedition Laws.

When I was 15-years-old, I swore my first Oath to support and defend the United States Constitution when I served as a young page boy in the House of Representatives. Later, as a Member of Congress (a Republican and a conservative), I took that same oath to uphold the Constitution, to which every congressman and senator currently serving has also supposedly sworn their allegiance.

To Hell with the Constitution?

So knowing that, how can we explain the U.S. Congress continuing to support an unconstitutional law, the PATRIOT Act, that virtually repeals the guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure in the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights?

My answer: fear. It's not justified fear of "terrorism " -- but cowardly fear of not politicians not getting reelected! Politics rules, to Hell with the U.S. Constitution!

 The PATRIOT Act Report

In this special 44 page report I wrote (and just revised for the third time, Sept. 2009), you learn all about the PATRIOT Act and its far-reaching invasion of your rights -- and what you can do to defend yourself.

Plus, you'll automatically receive a FREE subscription to the world’s most popular offshore e-letter, The Sovereign Society Offshore A-Letter. With more than 230,000 readers world wide, The A-Letter keeps you in touch with global events and investments that affect your wealth and safety. Learn more here.

No Way Out -- or an Exit Strategy?

I travel a lot on airplanes, notwithstanding the fact that the very first time I flew, (on an Eastern Airlines DC-3 in 1947) the plane crash landed. (I've written about that interesting experience of my youth before).

I always ask for an exit row seat when I fly, if I can get one, and not just for the extra leg room. If I can't get an exit row, I make sure to notice where the exits are and listen to the now familiar instructions of the staff or the video.

Similarly, from time to time you read about the horrendous loss of life in nightclub fires when exits are locked, or insufficient to allow egress in an emergency. On November 28th 1942, a huge fire occurred at the Coconut Grove Night Club in Boston. 492 people perished because the only exit was one revolving door. In 2003 one hundred people died and 230 were injured in a Warwick, Rhode Island nightclub fire because of lack of exits.

Plan Ahead

Perhaps I am being overly dramatic, but I personally believe the current situation in the United States, politically and economically, is as serious as it has been at any time since the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

So serious that reasonable people now should be considering what they might do if things become so dire that an escape from America becomes necessary.

Frankly, in all my years I never thought I would reach the point that I would counsel people on how to move their assets and their selves away from what I still consider to be one of the greatest nations on earth.

But the America I knew as a teenage page in the U.S. House of Representatives and later as member of that body, has changed -- and not for the better.

Foresight

The Sovereign Society was founded by patriotic Americans and citizens of other nations who, more than a decade ago, recognized the growing trend against individual liberty for the very real threat that it was and is. Since then our membership has grown considerably.

I believe much of that growth is attributable to the fact that we offer not only a philosophy of freedom, but concrete plans that can be followed, both now and should implementing an exit strategy become necessary. That day may be closer at hand than we want to admit.

I have traveled all over the world, met thousands of people concerned about their family's future and the ability to avoid stultify taxes and government controls. They often ask: "What can I do?"

Join Me in Los Cabos

That's why I suggest to you that you should be at the Third Annual Offshore Advantage Seminar, a Beginner’s Guide to the Offshore World, November 4, 2009 – November 7, 2009 at the Westin, Los Cabos, Mexico.

There you will find the answers to your questions, as well as that exit strategy.

I'll be there, along our executive director, Erika Nolan, and many professional members of our Council of Experts from all across the offshore world. Attendance already is the largest we have ever had and I can guarantee, along with the valuable education, you'll have a great social time as well.

Where else could you confer, one on one, with so many leading offshore experts?

You'll come away with not just an "exit strategy" but with a whole new understanding of the many possibilities that exist in offshore banking, asset protection, investing and tax deferral.

I hope to see you there. As they say, "Come on down."

All the best and in the name of personal freedom,

 

Kill All the Lawyers -- or Do It Yourself

"The first thing we do," says Dick the Butcher, a character in Shakespeare's Henry VI, part 2 is "kill all the lawyers."

Most people are familiar with that phrase, one of the original lawyer jokes, so to speak. Rueful, mocking, this quote often expresses the ordinary person's frustration with the arcana and complexity of law -- and with the chicanery of too many lawyers.

Will Shakespeare must have had a lot of legal troubles himself.

He used lawyers as figures of derision on several occasions. In Romeo and Juliet, Mercutio uses the line "O'er lawyers' fingers, who straight dream on fees." In King Lear, the fool defends a speech in riddles by comparing it to the gobbledygook of an "unfee'd lawyer."

I must confess a possible conflict of interest or two on the subject of lawyers.

I graduated from the Georgetown University Law Center in 1964 and have been a member of the bar for 44 years. One of my daughters, Eugenie Marie Eardley, also a GU Law grad ('91), is a successful and widely known plaintiff's trial lawyer in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Billions for MedMal?

What brought this to mind was an issue raised as part of the debate over national health care legislation now raging in the U.S. Congress. Conservatives have argued that one major way to reduce medical costs is to curb unreasonable lawsuits based on alleged medial malpractice.

Lawrence J. McQuillan is director of business and economic studies at the Pacific Research Institute and coauthor of "The Facts about Medical Malpractice Liability Costs" and "Tort Law Tally."

Earlier this month, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said medical-liability reforms could save about $11 billion annually.

McQuillan claims this assessment is "a gross underestimate of the potential benefits of reform and was intended to give cover to congressional Democrats who say malpractice-liability costs are trifling." He says that "a full accounting shows the benefits would be a hefty $242 billion a year, more than 10 percent of America's health expenditures."

The counter argument is that if medical providers screw up, those injured by their mistakes should have a right to sue and be compensated for their damages.

Ignorance of the Law

According to the U.S. Department of State, in 2008 there were nearly one million lawyers in the United States, a number that represents over 70% of all the lawyers in the world. That total represents an increase of nearly 100% from the 1980 total of 542,000 and an incredible 150% increase from the 1970 total of 355,000.

 
America has 361 lawyers for every 100,000 people, compared to Britain with 94 per 100,000, 33 in France and a mere seven per 100,000 in Japan.

And all those lawyers do file lawsuits -- about 17 million civil cases were filed in state and federal courts in each recent year. Your chances of being involved in a lawsuit during your life time are one in five.

U Needa Lawyer

Americans have traditionally held a lawyer's assistance to be essential when faced with a legal problem of almost any kind. "After all," a layman's prudence suggests, "what does the average person know about the mysteries of the law?" That's why attorneys are required to go to law school, isn't it - so they can master the intricacies of such a vast, complex field of knowledge?

The corollary fable is that all legal matters are "serious" by their very nature. Thus, the conventional wisdom when a legal problem arises is: "Don't try to do it yourself -- get an attorney." This theme has been repeated so often (usually by lawyers), it has been reduced to a modern aphorism: "One who acts as his or her own attorney has a fool for a client."

Incestuous?

Think about the process: lawyers make the laws (in the U.S. Congress and most state legislatures, the largest single occupational group is lawyers); lawyers, as judges, interpret and apply the laws; and only attorneys are allowed to represent people who find themselves entangled with those same law, (although you can choose to represent yourself).

And when it comes to policing the ethical conduct of lawyers, mostly lawyers administer codes of conduct they write themselves, through bar associations and grievance committees they con¬trol, usually meeting in secret. Most of these committees have a dismal record of disciplining fellow attorneys.

A few years ago Bill Bonner, (left) the founder of head of Agora Communications, asked me to write what he described as "a layman's guide to the law" -- a book that would allow the average person to understand legal problems they face in every day life and tell them what to do, short of having to hire a lawyer.

Do It Yourself

From that suggestion came my book, Lawyer-Proof Your Life, subtitled: A Do-It-Yourself Guide to Saving Time, Saving Money and Avoiding Lawsuits.

Granted, you may run into some complicated legal situations that will require the expertise of a professional. But even then, this book will help by giving you the information you need to realistically assess your own position, and to understand the recommendations and actions of your attorney.

My goal in this 245-page book is to help keep you in control of your own life, and your own business and financial dealings. You can think of this book as the legal equivalent of a First-Aid manual. It covers just about every legal situation you are ever likely to face in life (and some after death).

You’ve learned how to self-medicate your sore throat and bandage minor scrapes and burns without first graduating from medical school. My book will teach you how to bind up your own legal wounds -and lawyer-proof your life.

For more information about Lawyer Proof Your Life, this is the place to click.