Monday, August 22, 2016


Ron Paul talking about the problems with the propaganda created by the Federal Reserve Bank on their newly created facebook page. An essential and interesting conversation.

Tuesday, July 15, 2014


 The sum payable

The sum payable must be a sum which is certain, allowing for the variables set out in s14:

14  Sum payable

                   (1) The sum payable by a bill is a sum certain within the meaning of this Act, although it is required to be paid with, by or according to, as the case requires, any one or more of the following, namely:

                           (a) interest or bank charges; or

                           (b) stated instalments; or

                           (c) stated instalments, with a provision that upon default in payment of any instalment the whole shall become due; or

                           (d) an indicated rate of exchange, or a rate of exchange to be ascertained as directed by the bill.

                   (2) Where more than one sum is expressed to be payable in a bill, the lesser or least, as the case may be, of the sums so expressed to be payable shall be taken to be the only sum ordered to be paid by the bill.

                   (3) Where a bill is expressed to be payable with interest, unless the instrument otherwise provides, interest runs from the date of the bill, and if the bill is undated from the issue thereof.

The ‘sum certain’ must appear on the face of the bill of exchange: Lamberton v Aiken (1899) 37 SLR 138 (which referred to interest); Rosenhain v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1922) 31 CLR 46 (interest); Standard Bank of Canada v Wildey (1919) SR (NSW) 384 (considered the term ‘all the bank charges’ was uncertain); Tropic Plastic Packaging Industry v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd (1969) 4 SALR 108 (currency rate of exchange with additional words making the amount uncertain).

Where the amount payable is stated in words and numbers, an inconsistency in some jurisdictions is not uncertain as the rule make the amount stated in words payable, see s14(2) and also in the UK s9(2), US UCC s3-118(c), Canada s28(2), NZ s9(2), South Africa s7(2), India s18 and countries which have adopted the Geneva Convention Art 6.

Taken from 3.1 Bills Of Exchange 7-7-6.doc

Saturday, May 31, 2014


Can Section 861 of the Internal Revenue Code save you from income taxes?

July 30 2003 By
Last week, the federal government sued three businesses in California and Colorado to force them to withhold payroll taxes from their employees' paychecks. This is the latest chapter in a bizarre fight between the feds and adherents of what is known as the "Section 861 argument" or the "861 position." 
Despite Attorney General John Ashcroft's well-documented prudery, the campaign isn't a crusade against people who delve too deeply into the Kama Sutra. Rather, it's an effort directed against a band of determined tax law enthusiasts who, the Justice Department and federal courts say, willfully misinterpret a section of the Internal Revenue Code in order to duck taxes. 
Tax law is a field that naturally attracts people with the ability and desire to endlessly parse words, clauses, and definitions. Adherents of Section 861—as in Section 861 of Title 26 in the U.S. Code—exhibit these extraordinary Talmudic capabilities. Rather than deny the constitutionality of federal income taxes or the legitimacy of the Internal Revenue Service, as some cruder tax protesters do, 861 protesters have attempted to ferret out contradictions within the text of the famously convoluted tax code and beat the government at its own game. (One 861 advocate's call to arms is titled: "Section 861: The Law They Hope You Never Read.")
Larken Rose is one of the primary exponents of the 861 position. Long suspicious of the federal income tax, Rose, who with his wife operated a small transcription service in Abington Township, Pa., began to examine various arguments against it in the 1990s. He found most of them illogical, until he stumbled on Section 861.
As detailed in his 79-page report, the code contains general definitions of what constitutes gross income and taxable income. At first blush, they appear to apply to virtually all income earned by just about everybody. But certain regulations and portions of the law that describe when domestic and foreign income are taxable undermine that commonly held view, Rose claims. "The regulations say that only income from specific types of commerce, all of which have some kind of connection to international commerce or federal possessions, are taxable," says Rose. In other words, if you don't engage in foreign trade or work in a U.S. possession such as the Northern Mariana Islands, your earnings shouldn't be subject to the federal income tax. 
The tightly reasoned and plentifullysourced tract, which relies heavily on complicated disquisitions on the placement of the word "the" and the definition of "source," is a form of what Walter Olson,asenior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, calls "folk law": legal claims that "bubbled up without any encouragement from the legal professions." 
Lawyer Bernard Sussman less charitably describes this and other arguments in an online casebook as "Idiot Legal Arguments." Indeed, according to the New York Times, one of the defendants in last week's 861 lawsuits, James Molen, who co-owns a floral shop in Chico, Calif., "is part of a movement that contends that court actions in which names are typed in all capital letters, as the case filed yesterday was, are not valid." The theory, rejected by courts many times over, is that by typing a person's name in all capitals, the courts are essentially describing a new entity, unrelated to the individual to whom they mean to refer. (ee cummings' standing under such a regime is unclear.)
For his part, Larken Rose—who is thoroughly logical—dismisses the all-caps argument, as well as the theories of Irwin Schiff, who argues that there is no law requiring U.S. citizens to pay income taxes. 
A generation ago, 861 adherents might have quietly avoided filing 1040s and escaped detection. Furtive, small-scale practitioners of activity that is illegal but largely harmless—like smoking pot—generally escape prosecution. Those who do so loudly, however, invite legal trouble. And 861 followers like Rose have been doing the equivalent of holding a marijuana smoke-in at a public park. Rose has approached the IRS to discuss his views and has posted the transcript of one such meeting on his site. He has sold "somewhere between 14,000 and 15,000 legal copies" of the video Theft by Deception. "I know there are a bunch of bootlegs that are out there," he adds. (It wouldn't surprise "Moneybox" to learn that there exists among those who refuse to pay federal income taxes a high propensity to copy intellectual property.) And at least 100,000 copies of the Rose's "Taxable Income" report have been downloaded. 
By courting controversy and thumbing their nose at the law, the folk lawyers are striving to become folk heroes. And thanks to the Justice Department's increasingly vigorous efforts to clamp down on their activities, they may succeed. The feds have declared it a "a priority to pursue promoters of frivolous and fraudulent tax schemes." Last May, Larken Rose's house was raided by the Internal Revenue Service. 

But when they have been caught in the maw of the courts, 861ers haven't had much luck. Judges have repeatedly rejected claims based on Section 861. As far as the legal system is concerned, it's law settled many times over. Unlike folk remedies, folk law never seems to work—at least when it comes to taxes.

Friday, April 25, 2014


Louise Brannelly The Courier-Mail April 24, 2014

Blame game over Clem7 money pit
Brisbane's Clem 7 tunnel which is managed by Qld Motorways. Source: News Limited
THE State Government's investment arm QIC Ltd has sold tollway operator Queensland Motorways for more than $7 billion, a price higher than many expected it would secure. 

The successful bidder was a consortium comprising Transurban, Australian Super and Tawreed Investments, a subsidiary of the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority.

The sale, for $7.057 billion, including stamp duty, is subject to conditions and expected to be completed before the end of September.

It ranks as one of the biggest corporate deals in Australia in recent years.

Many analysts had speculated QIC would only be able to get from $5 billion to $6 billion for the 70km network of tolled roads, bridges and infrastructure.

Queensland Motorways assets include the Gateway, Gateway Extension and Logan motorways, Brisbane's Go-Between Bridge, CLEM7 tunnel and the planned Legacy Way motorway due to open in 2015.

QIC chief executive officer Damien Frawley said the Queensland Motorways business was held by QIC on behalf of the State's Defined Benefit Fund, which provides for the superannuation obligations of current public servants.

"The result is a great outcome for the Defined Benefit Fund, with the net proceeds from the sale to remain in the Defined Benefit Fund to meet public sector superannuation liabilities to existing members," he said.

The state government transferred the business - which at the time included just the Gateway and Logan motorways - to QIC to manage in May 2011 for a market-value price of $3.088 billion.

Mr Frawley said QIC had made substantial progress in commercialising the business since taking over three years ago, installing a highly experienced board and management team.

"They have substantially expanded the road network, including through the unique, unsolicited transaction with Brisbane City Council on Legacy Way and the Go Between Bridge, and the purchase of the CLEM7 motorway for an attractive price," he said.

"There was a high level of interest in the sale process, with a number of competing consortia comprising committed and competitive local and international institutional investors and strategic industry players."

The others bidders were believed to include consortiums with Singapore's government-owned wealth fund GIC, toll-road business Abertis and the Malaysian Government's strategic investment fund Khazanah Nasional Berhad.

Mr Frawley said the Transurban consortium, which the market had considered the frontrunner in the bidding process, has a long-established track record in successfully owning and operating similar assets.

A Transurban spokesman was not available for comment last night.

Chairman Lindsay Maxsted, who was in Brisbane earlier this month to meet local business leaders, said Queensland Motorways was a good fit for his ASX-listed company.

"This has been a quality asset for a long time," he said.