Re: [I-S] JustiaGate

If this is true, this is amazing, and possibly the biggest scandal of our Nation's history...This would surpass Watergate, the Teapot Dome Scandal, and each and every scandalous act that I can think of. 

 

This is amazing.....Again if true.

 

 

On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Bruce Majors <majors.bruce@gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

Here is an excellent report on how Obama's people systematically removed evidence that he was ineligible as a dual citizen from Justia.com, the leading public source for legal research.

 

http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-portland/justiagate

 

JustiaGate

·         By Dianna Cotter, Portland Civil Rights Examiner

Date Published: October 20, 2011

Someone was incredibly busy in June 2008 working on an illegal front invisible to the public; searching and altering Supreme Court Cases published at Justia.com which cite the only case in American history - Minor v. Happersett (1875) - to directly construe Article 2 Section 1's natural-born citizen clause in determining a citizenship issue as part of its holding and precedent. In this unanimous decision, the Supreme Court defined a "native or natural-born citizen" as a person born in the US to parents who were citizens; a definition which excludes from eligibility both Barack Obama and John McCain.

In June 2008 no one was discussing Minor v. Happersett 88 US 162 (1875) with regard to Obama. In fact, those who were discussing the then Senator's citizenship status had focused instead on his birth in Hawaii in a attempt to prove the future president was not born in the United States despite publication of the Senator's short form computer generated Birth Certificate. It would not be until October of 2008 that Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility would be questioned as to his status as a dual citizen at the time of his birth.

Advertisement

<a href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/cdg.examiner2.portland-or/pol/pos3/article;tt=civil%20rights;plc=portland;chn=politics;subc=policy%20%26%20issues;sect=policy%20%26%20issues;nid=38722191;top=politics;top=policy%20%26%20issues;top=happersett;top=minor%20v%20happersett;top=obama;top=fraud;top=supreme%20court;top=president;ed=portland-or;uid=1936661;etid=7715;pgtp=article;tile=3;pos=3;sz=300x250;kw=;ord=228633286?" target="_blank"><img src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/cdg.examiner2.portland-or/pol/pos3/article;tt=civil%20rights;plc=portland;chn=politics;subc=policy%20%26%20issues;sect=policy%20%26%20issues;nid=38722191;top=politics;top=policy%20%26%20issues;top=happersett;top=minor%20v%20happersett;top=obama;top=fraud;top=supreme%20court;top=president;ed=portland-or;uid=1936661;etid=7715;pgtp=article;tile=3;pos=3;sz=300x250;kw=;ord=228633286?" width="300" height="250" alt="" /></a>

Meanwhile, at the "Supreme Court Center" of the influential legal research website Justia.com, efforts were underway corrupting at least 25 Supreme Court cases by erasing references to the words "Minor V. Happersett" along with references to other relevant cases on the issue along with the insertion of misleading numerical ciations. And In two documented cases actual text was removed.

Clearly this was done in these specific cases in order to prevent their being found by internet researchers long before anyone had even begun to look for them, even before Obama would win the Democratic Nomination at the DNC Convention in Denver, Colorado in August '08. This is premeditation and intent to deceive.

So far, 25 corrupted SCOTUS have been identified, and this number may continue to rise as the scope of the tampering becomes apparent. These cases all relied upon Minor, some specifically referencing its definition of Natural Born Citizen - a definition which makes Obama ineligible to be President as that definition is part of the holding and continuing precedent, issued from the highest court in our nation making it the law of the land, even now.

The most extreme sabotage so far discovered appears to have been done to the landmark decision United States v. Wong Kim Ark which was sabotaged to remove "Minor v. Happersett" three times, along with one reference to "Scott v Sandford", another to the Slaughterhouse Cases and some accompanying text relevant to the issue. These surgical alterations would alter and shape the national dialogue; leaving a persistent and incorrect interpretation of the meaning of the 'natural born citizen' clause. There is no doubt whatsoever that this was the specific intent of those responsible for this illegal editing of American history and law.

As previously mentioned, the specific distinction between Citizen and Natural Born Citizen made in Minor v. Happersett is in the holding of the case, the section which creates the Law, and it is this Law which has been repeatedly cited over the decades since. In order to minimize the importance of Minor, someone at Justia deliberately decided to make these supporting citations as difficult as possible to find.

This has had the desired effect, diluting the importance of Minor v. Happersett in the national dialogue across the blogosphere's political spectrum ever since. The end result: the one case which defines Natural Born Citizen was reduced to seeming irrelevance, and thus the conversation never got past doorkeepers already in Obama's camp in the mainstream media.

Of course, a lawyer going into Court would never rely upon anything but an official source for Supreme Court law, but 99.9% of the population have no access to dusty law texts, or expensive legal research services such as Lexis and Westlaw. Those who committed these crimes were well aware of this, and used it to their advantage.

The manipulation at Justia.com diluted the importance of Minor by killing the citations in Supreme Court cases spanning over 100 years. Since Google most often returns Justia.com's version of the case being searched for as the first or second hit, Justia's version of Supreme Court opinions are most influential in the blogosphere's forums and comments. Erasing those citations and text on the internet literally erases the importance of Minor and its precedents to millions of Americans otherwise unlikely to ever step into physical Law Library.

This is nothing short of appalling. Justia swapped their tampered versions of the cases for the actual Supreme Court opinions and then pawned them off as if the tampered versions contained the "Full Text" of the Supreme Court's opinions. Yet Justia CEO Tim Stanley claims that making case law available to the public for free is the mission of Justia. In reality, Justia has been re-inventing our legal history and passing it off as genuine.

Attorney Donofrio's Full report "Justia.com Surgically Removed "Minor v Happersett" from 25 Supreme Court Opinions in run up to '08 Election", published today explains that exposure to criminal punishment is a direct result of not just the tampering, but more specifically, as a result of placing text on every tampered page which states, "Full text of case":

Regardless of who you supported in 2008, or whether you agree with the assertion of Minor's relevance, every American should be outraged that 25 Supreme Court cases were surgically sabotaged and then passed off to the public as if the tampered versions contained the "Full Text of Case". This is the very definition of "Orwellian" fascism. It's propaganda. And there is no place for it in the United States. The sacrifices for truth and justice which created and have sustained this nation are wantonly debased by the subversive deception emanating from Justia.com servers. - Leo Donofrio Esq.

Clearly, the corruption of Supreme Court Cases was systemic and surgically targeted within Justia.com, one of the largest and best known legal research sites on the internet. Justia is nothing if not efficient in driving traffic to its site; this is after all their business. Today they partner with Google and have Google Analytics within their site which does two things; it increases Justia's visibility on Google searches, and it pushes their website to the top of those searches done on legal issues. When specific search terms are erased out of a document, naturally that document will not appear on a search. Anyone searching for the case name "Minor v. Happersett" and "citizenship" would never see the dozens of cases manipulated by Justia.com.

Justia founder Tim Stanley has for years prided himself and his companies on principles of 'freedom of information'. On June 19th, 2008, Stanley addressed the Legislative Council Committee at the Oregon State Legislature with the following statements:

"Our goal is to provide academic researchers, government officials, attorneys, and the public with advanced features, including full‐text search, annotations by legal professionals, and comparison tools to visualize the differences in the law between the individual states…"

And

"In the end, we both recognize the importance of providing the public with online access to our nation's laws because such actions promote understanding, participation in and respect for our democratic institutions and legal system."

To describe these comments, made at roughly the same time Supreme Court Cases were being scrubbed and deliberately altered at his site as ironic, is an understatement of gross proportions.

Only a person thoroughly educated in the law would know precisely which cases to look for in order to direct the changes to be made to those cases. Furthermore, only someone with access to Justia.com's database could physically make these changes from inside the website. This artificially created a near empty result set and the cases which did turn up led those inexperienced in the law, nowhere.

This appears to violate every principle Tim Stanley and Justia.com have built their business upon.

The manipulations at Justia.com were initially discovered by Attorney Leo Donofrio on July 1, 2011, when he published his initial report, "Justia.com Caught Red Handed Hiding References to Minor v. Happersett In Published US Supreme Court Decisions,". Upon publication of his original discovery documenting the sabotage of Boyd v. Nebraska, and Pope v. Williams, two Supreme Court cases which cite to Minor v. Happersett as precedent on citizenship, two things happened almost immediately: First, the altered pages were returned to their original versions at Justia within an hour or so of Donofrio's publication. Second, despite Justia CEO Tim Stanley's cries for freedom of legal information (and law suits compelling the same), robots have now been placed on the Justia URL's for the Boyd and Pope cases at InternetArchive.org, also known as the Waybackmachine. These robots make it impossible to see the tampering as it unfolded in mid-2008... with those cases.

So much for freedom of information.

One can, however, still see the tampering from screenshots taken by Donofrio and are attached to that original report on July 1, 2011 at his blog, Natural Born Citizen, which has been singularly focused on the issue of Presidential eligibility since late 2008.

As Donofrio documents in his article today, when he discovered a third tampered case, instead of rushing to publish it, he contacted a number of other bloggers and reporters to help document the evidence before Justia dispersed their robots to block it. While Donofrio originally only discovered two cases of tampering, somebody at Justia knew where the bones were buried and went about reinstating "Minor v. Happersett" in the at least 25 cases which it had earlier sabotaged. It appears that whoever knew about these additional despoiled cases, must have believed by fixing them before the corruption was exposed no one would ever suspect they too had been altered.

What tipped Donofrio off last week to the extent of Justia's tampering was the case "Luria v. United States". This case also firmly supports Minor on citizenship, and he double checked the text to see if it included references to Minor. It did… something he had not noticed upon previous readings of the case at Justia.com.

With his new insight into SCOTUS case tampering, he plugged the URL into the Waybackmachine to see if it had been altered in the past. Bingo. It had. Furthermore there was nothing blocking his ability to see those snapshotted pages, and how they had been altered compared to the original text. The gun wasn't just smoking, the bullet was still flying.

A brief explanation of the how the Waybackmachine works. It takes snapshots of internet pages. It may not record the day a given webpage changed, but it documents the changes when it does hit that page. Thus a date on the Waybackmachine of April 13, 2004 means this was the date the snapshot was taken, not when the changes were necessarily made. There is no way of knowing precisely when the change occurred as the waybackmachine does not record the precise instant the change is made, it is only sometime later when the Internet archive records it.

The evidence he discovered there, at the time of publication of this article, is still available and shows the same exact same pattern of behavior - deception - that Justia exhibited with the Boyd and Pope cases Donofrio published back in July.

If Justia hasn't blocked access to the WaybackMachine for their publication of Luria v. US, 231 U.S. 9 (1913) by the time you read this, then it continues to be evident and accessible that on Nov. 4, 2006 the Waybackmachine recorded Justia published the true original opinion issued by the Supreme Court with no tampering evident. Minor v. Happersett is cited on page 22 directly referencing Presidential eligibility as follows:

"Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 165, 22 L. ed. 627; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101, 28 S. L. ed. 643, 645, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 41; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 827, 6 L. ed. 204, 225."

The July 6, 2008 Waybackmachine snapshot of Luria v. US is the first snapshot that shows the tampering:

"Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; 22 U. S. 827."

Notice that "Minor v. Happersett" has been removed along with the reference to "Osborn v. United States", another case which causes trouble for Obama (and McCain). All of the WaybackMachine snapshots between July 6, 2008, and April 13, 2010 for this case, show the same tampering. The current, live Justia page for Luria v. US has been un-scrubbed and shows the original Supreme Court text. It is only with an archival resource such as the Waybackmachine that the alterations can be seen.

At publication, insertion of the URL into the Waybackmachine for this page at Justia still reveals the changes made to this page over time. Repeat this entire process with 25 Supreme Court cases and the extent of the tampering becomes evident.

This is disturbing enough, yet there was another subtle and insidious layer of deception. In every single instance of tampering, the numerical citation attached to Minor V. Happersett, has also been altered. (See Donofrio's blog for a complete break down of this.) Changing these numbers is yet another layer of deception practiced at Justia.

While Donofrio documents in detail what the finer points of law in both versions mean in his article, this Examiner.com publication documents what this reporter has personally witnessed – the tampering of Supreme Court Cases online in the guise of "Full Text of Case". This article is not the legal opinion of an attorney; it is witness to an event.

It's important to note that the only way Justia could block all access to previous versions of their publication of cases would require .txt robots to be placed on their entire domain records at the Waybackmachine. If Tim Stanley were to secure Justia.com from the honest and forthright archiving of the WaybackMachine, he would be an instant pariah in the freedom of information scene of which he is a leader.

Furthermore, if Stanley were to place robots on only the 25 (or more) cases which cite Minor v. Happersett, it would be a de-facto admission of guilt.

It appears that whoever tampered with these cases went back and "fixed" all of them, including 23 Donofrio wasn't aware of until this week when he conclusively established the sabotage by Justia. For all 25, the pattern is precisely the same. In 2006, the cases at Justia are pristine in the Waybackmachine; word for word from official Supreme Court cases. Then at various points in 2008, the cases are corrupted by removal of the case name "Minor v, Happersett" ( as well as some other case names and text.)

The cases remained corrupted, according to the snapshots of the Waybackmachine in most cases, until late 2010.

Today however, all 25 cases have been painstakingly returned to their official Supreme Court versions; all references to Minor are back, the case and page numbers have been restored, as well as all missing text and references to other cases. Still, the pattern is clearly visible to anyone who takes the time to look at the evidence made available by the Waybackmachine. The sophistication and surgical elegance used to sabotage these cases is astounding, and has been personally witnessed by this reporter.

Every case which has been found to date by Mr. Donofrio has been documented with great attention to all these details. This has been accomplished by downloading the full code of the original un-tainted pages and the corrupted revisions from the Waybackmachine's date stamped archive, along with screenshots of the pages as they appeared in browsers such as Mozilla Firefox before and after the tampering occurred, and the restored pages.

The volume of data is significant and Mr. Donofrio is in the process of making the entire archive available to the public. The article he has published today contains what he refers to as a "document dump". It is in reality evidence. The reader is strongly encouraged to view the images which document Justia's actions. Upon doing so, every member of congress should be notified of the existence of this information. Such usurpation of American history and law cannot be allowed.

Screenshots and links have been sent to several specific media contacts which include the Washington Times, Accuracy In Media, and Free Republic. In the interest of putting this information in front of as many eyes as possible before publication, it has been made freely available since Friday October 18, 2011 in the form of screenshots and saved page code. Should the information presented here be altered on the internet following publication, there will be a significant number of media outlets with knowledge and proof of any further alterations to internet archives.

The penalty associated with violating the "False Writings Statute", 18 U.S.C. 1018 is jail and a fine for each count. With at least 25 counts if not more, this could mean upwards of 25 years in prison. The manipulation of Supreme Court cases is an offense against all Americans, and the Court itself. If like Fast and Furious this scandal reaches directly to the White House, the ramifications are both dire and catastrophic.

Minor v. Happersett defined the one specific term which Barack Obama could not overcome with "Hope and Change" though he could 'hope' someone would 'change' the cases which help define the term "Natural Born Citizen,". This case, if it had been sufficiently known to the public and media, and sufficiently documented by supporting citations, might have eliminated the possibility of Obama's nomination and/or election. Either Obama got lucky in this regard, or the "constitutional law professor" and former editor of the Harvard Law Review had some hand in directing the efforts to erase the very citations in law which define him as a citizen, and at the same time rule him out as a constitutional candidate for President of the United States.

Just as certainly as the corruption at Justia.com has been documented and archived, more will be revealed. Stay tuned, it is expected that this information will generate some significant updates. They will be reported here as they happen.

Continue reading on Examiner.com JustiaGate - Portland Civil Rights | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-portland/justiagate#ixzz1bRLDalkH

__._,_.___

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic

Messages in this topic (1)

Recent Activity:

Visit Your Group

Report any problems, suggestions or abuse to Individual-Sovereignty-owner@yahoogroups.com

MARKETPLACE

Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

.

__,_._,___

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Fwd: [I-S] JustiaGate

 

 

Here is an excellent report on how Obama's people systematically removed evidence that he was ineligible as a dual citizen from Justia.com, the leading public source for legal research.

 

http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-portland/justiagate

 

JustiaGate

·         By Dianna Cotter, Portland Civil Rights Examiner

Date Published: October 20, 2011

Someone was incredibly busy in June 2008 working on an illegal front invisible to the public; searching and altering Supreme Court Cases published at Justia.com which cite the only case in American history - Minor v. Happersett (1875) - to directly construe Article 2 Section 1's natural-born citizen clause in determining a citizenship issue as part of its holding and precedent. In this unanimous decision, the Supreme Court defined a "native or natural-born citizen" as a person born in the US to parents who were citizens; a definition which excludes from eligibility both Barack Obama and John McCain.

In June 2008 no one was discussing Minor v. Happersett 88 US 162 (1875) with regard to Obama. In fact, those who were discussing the then Senator's citizenship status had focused instead on his birth in Hawaii in a attempt to prove the future president was not born in the United States despite publication of the Senator's short form computer generated Birth Certificate. It would not be until October of 2008 that Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility would be questioned as to his status as a dual citizen at the time of his birth.

Advertisement

<a href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/cdg.examiner2.portland-or/pol/pos3/article;tt=civil%20rights;plc=portland;chn=politics;subc=policy%20%26%20issues;sect=policy%20%26%20issues;nid=38722191;top=politics;top=policy%20%26%20issues;top=happersett;top=minor%20v%20happersett;top=obama;top=fraud;top=supreme%20court;top=president;ed=portland-or;uid=1936661;etid=7715;pgtp=article;tile=3;pos=3;sz=300x250;kw=;ord=228633286?" target="_blank"><img src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/cdg.examiner2.portland-or/pol/pos3/article;tt=civil%20rights;plc=portland;chn=politics;subc=policy%20%26%20issues;sect=policy%20%26%20issues;nid=38722191;top=politics;top=policy%20%26%20issues;top=happersett;top=minor%20v%20happersett;top=obama;top=fraud;top=supreme%20court;top=president;ed=portland-or;uid=1936661;etid=7715;pgtp=article;tile=3;pos=3;sz=300x250;kw=;ord=228633286?" width="300" height="250" alt="" /></a>

Meanwhile, at the "Supreme Court Center" of the influential legal research website Justia.com, efforts were underway corrupting at least 25 Supreme Court cases by erasing references to the words "Minor V. Happersett" along with references to other relevant cases on the issue along with the insertion of misleading numerical ciations. And In two documented cases actual text was removed.

Clearly this was done in these specific cases in order to prevent their being found by internet researchers long before anyone had even begun to look for them, even before Obama would win the Democratic Nomination at the DNC Convention in Denver, Colorado in August '08. This is premeditation and intent to deceive.

So far, 25 corrupted SCOTUS have been identified, and this number may continue to rise as the scope of the tampering becomes apparent. These cases all relied upon Minor, some specifically referencing its definition of Natural Born Citizen - a definition which makes Obama ineligible to be President as that definition is part of the holding and continuing precedent, issued from the highest court in our nation making it the law of the land, even now.

The most extreme sabotage so far discovered appears to have been done to the landmark decision United States v. Wong Kim Ark which was sabotaged to remove "Minor v. Happersett" three times, along with one reference to "Scott v Sandford", another to the Slaughterhouse Cases and some accompanying text relevant to the issue. These surgical alterations would alter and shape the national dialogue; leaving a persistent and incorrect interpretation of the meaning of the 'natural born citizen' clause. There is no doubt whatsoever that this was the specific intent of those responsible for this illegal editing of American history and law.

As previously mentioned, the specific distinction between Citizen and Natural Born Citizen made in Minor v. Happersett is in the holding of the case, the section which creates the Law, and it is this Law which has been repeatedly cited over the decades since. In order to minimize the importance of Minor, someone at Justia deliberately decided to make these supporting citations as difficult as possible to find.

This has had the desired effect, diluting the importance of Minor v. Happersett in the national dialogue across the blogosphere's political spectrum ever since. The end result: the one case which defines Natural Born Citizen was reduced to seeming irrelevance, and thus the conversation never got past doorkeepers already in Obama's camp in the mainstream media.

Of course, a lawyer going into Court would never rely upon anything but an official source for Supreme Court law, but 99.9% of the population have no access to dusty law texts, or expensive legal research services such as Lexis and Westlaw. Those who committed these crimes were well aware of this, and used it to their advantage.

The manipulation at Justia.com diluted the importance of Minor by killing the citations in Supreme Court cases spanning over 100 years. Since Google most often returns Justia.com's version of the case being searched for as the first or second hit, Justia's version of Supreme Court opinions are most influential in the blogosphere's forums and comments. Erasing those citations and text on the internet literally erases the importance of Minor and its precedents to millions of Americans otherwise unlikely to ever step into physical Law Library.

This is nothing short of appalling. Justia swapped their tampered versions of the cases for the actual Supreme Court opinions and then pawned them off as if the tampered versions contained the "Full Text" of the Supreme Court's opinions. Yet Justia CEO Tim Stanley claims that making case law available to the public for free is the mission of Justia. In reality, Justia has been re-inventing our legal history and passing it off as genuine.

Attorney Donofrio's Full report "Justia.com Surgically Removed "Minor v Happersett" from 25 Supreme Court Opinions in run up to '08 Election", published today explains that exposure to criminal punishment is a direct result of not just the tampering, but more specifically, as a result of placing text on every tampered page which states, "Full text of case":

Regardless of who you supported in 2008, or whether you agree with the assertion of Minor's relevance, every American should be outraged that 25 Supreme Court cases were surgically sabotaged and then passed off to the public as if the tampered versions contained the "Full Text of Case". This is the very definition of "Orwellian" fascism. It's propaganda. And there is no place for it in the United States. The sacrifices for truth and justice which created and have sustained this nation are wantonly debased by the subversive deception emanating from Justia.com servers. - Leo Donofrio Esq.

Clearly, the corruption of Supreme Court Cases was systemic and surgically targeted within Justia.com, one of the largest and best known legal research sites on the internet. Justia is nothing if not efficient in driving traffic to its site; this is after all their business. Today they partner with Google and have Google Analytics within their site which does two things; it increases Justia's visibility on Google searches, and it pushes their website to the top of those searches done on legal issues. When specific search terms are erased out of a document, naturally that document will not appear on a search. Anyone searching for the case name "Minor v. Happersett" and "citizenship" would never see the dozens of cases manipulated by Justia.com.

Justia founder Tim Stanley has for years prided himself and his companies on principles of 'freedom of information'. On June 19th, 2008, Stanley addressed the Legislative Council Committee at the Oregon State Legislature with the following statements:

"Our goal is to provide academic researchers, government officials, attorneys, and the public with advanced features, including full‐text search, annotations by legal professionals, and comparison tools to visualize the differences in the law between the individual states…"

And

"In the end, we both recognize the importance of providing the public with online access to our nation's laws because such actions promote understanding, participation in and respect for our democratic institutions and legal system."

To describe these comments, made at roughly the same time Supreme Court Cases were being scrubbed and deliberately altered at his site as ironic, is an understatement of gross proportions.

Only a person thoroughly educated in the law would know precisely which cases to look for in order to direct the changes to be made to those cases. Furthermore, only someone with access to Justia.com's database could physically make these changes from inside the website. This artificially created a near empty result set and the cases which did turn up led those inexperienced in the law, nowhere.

This appears to violate every principle Tim Stanley and Justia.com have built their business upon.

The manipulations at Justia.com were initially discovered by Attorney Leo Donofrio on July 1, 2011, when he published his initial report, "Justia.com Caught Red Handed Hiding References to Minor v. Happersett In Published US Supreme Court Decisions,". Upon publication of his original discovery documenting the sabotage of Boyd v. Nebraska, and Pope v. Williams, two Supreme Court cases which cite to Minor v. Happersett as precedent on citizenship, two things happened almost immediately: First, the altered pages were returned to their original versions at Justia within an hour or so of Donofrio's publication. Second, despite Justia CEO Tim Stanley's cries for freedom of legal information (and law suits compelling the same), robots have now been placed on the Justia URL's for the Boyd and Pope cases at InternetArchive.org, also known as the Waybackmachine. These robots make it impossible to see the tampering as it unfolded in mid-2008... with those cases.

So much for freedom of information.

One can, however, still see the tampering from screenshots taken by Donofrio and are attached to that original report on July 1, 2011 at his blog, Natural Born Citizen, which has been singularly focused on the issue of Presidential eligibility since late 2008.

As Donofrio documents in his article today, when he discovered a third tampered case, instead of rushing to publish it, he contacted a number of other bloggers and reporters to help document the evidence before Justia dispersed their robots to block it. While Donofrio originally only discovered two cases of tampering, somebody at Justia knew where the bones were buried and went about reinstating "Minor v. Happersett" in the at least 25 cases which it had earlier sabotaged. It appears that whoever knew about these additional despoiled cases, must have believed by fixing them before the corruption was exposed no one would ever suspect they too had been altered.

What tipped Donofrio off last week to the extent of Justia's tampering was the case "Luria v. United States". This case also firmly supports Minor on citizenship, and he double checked the text to see if it included references to Minor. It did… something he had not noticed upon previous readings of the case at Justia.com.

With his new insight into SCOTUS case tampering, he plugged the URL into the Waybackmachine to see if it had been altered in the past. Bingo. It had. Furthermore there was nothing blocking his ability to see those snapshotted pages, and how they had been altered compared to the original text. The gun wasn't just smoking, the bullet was still flying.

A brief explanation of the how the Waybackmachine works. It takes snapshots of internet pages. It may not record the day a given webpage changed, but it documents the changes when it does hit that page. Thus a date on the Waybackmachine of April 13, 2004 means this was the date the snapshot was taken, not when the changes were necessarily made. There is no way of knowing precisely when the change occurred as the waybackmachine does not record the precise instant the change is made, it is only sometime later when the Internet archive records it.

The evidence he discovered there, at the time of publication of this article, is still available and shows the same exact same pattern of behavior - deception - that Justia exhibited with the Boyd and Pope cases Donofrio published back in July.

If Justia hasn't blocked access to the WaybackMachine for their publication of Luria v. US, 231 U.S. 9 (1913) by the time you read this, then it continues to be evident and accessible that on Nov. 4, 2006 the Waybackmachine recorded Justia published the true original opinion issued by the Supreme Court with no tampering evident. Minor v. Happersett is cited on page 22 directly referencing Presidential eligibility as follows:

"Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 165, 22 L. ed. 627; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101, 28 S. L. ed. 643, 645, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 41; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 827, 6 L. ed. 204, 225."

The July 6, 2008 Waybackmachine snapshot of Luria v. US is the first snapshot that shows the tampering:

"Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; 22 U. S. 827."

Notice that "Minor v. Happersett" has been removed along with the reference to "Osborn v. United States", another case which causes trouble for Obama (and McCain). All of the WaybackMachine snapshots between July 6, 2008, and April 13, 2010 for this case, show the same tampering. The current, live Justia page for Luria v. US has been un-scrubbed and shows the original Supreme Court text. It is only with an archival resource such as the Waybackmachine that the alterations can be seen.

At publication, insertion of the URL into the Waybackmachine for this page at Justia still reveals the changes made to this page over time. Repeat this entire process with 25 Supreme Court cases and the extent of the tampering becomes evident.

This is disturbing enough, yet there was another subtle and insidious layer of deception. In every single instance of tampering, the numerical citation attached to Minor V. Happersett, has also been altered. (See Donofrio's blog for a complete break down of this.) Changing these numbers is yet another layer of deception practiced at Justia.

While Donofrio documents in detail what the finer points of law in both versions mean in his article, this Examiner.com publication documents what this reporter has personally witnessed – the tampering of Supreme Court Cases online in the guise of "Full Text of Case". This article is not the legal opinion of an attorney; it is witness to an event.

It's important to note that the only way Justia could block all access to previous versions of their publication of cases would require .txt robots to be placed on their entire domain records at the Waybackmachine. If Tim Stanley were to secure Justia.com from the honest and forthright archiving of the WaybackMachine, he would be an instant pariah in the freedom of information scene of which he is a leader.

Furthermore, if Stanley were to place robots on only the 25 (or more) cases which cite Minor v. Happersett, it would be a de-facto admission of guilt.

It appears that whoever tampered with these cases went back and "fixed" all of them, including 23 Donofrio wasn't aware of until this week when he conclusively established the sabotage by Justia. For all 25, the pattern is precisely the same. In 2006, the cases at Justia are pristine in the Waybackmachine; word for word from official Supreme Court cases. Then at various points in 2008, the cases are corrupted by removal of the case name "Minor v, Happersett" ( as well as some other case names and text.)

The cases remained corrupted, according to the snapshots of the Waybackmachine in most cases, until late 2010.

Today however, all 25 cases have been painstakingly returned to their official Supreme Court versions; all references to Minor are back, the case and page numbers have been restored, as well as all missing text and references to other cases. Still, the pattern is clearly visible to anyone who takes the time to look at the evidence made available by the Waybackmachine. The sophistication and surgical elegance used to sabotage these cases is astounding, and has been personally witnessed by this reporter.

Every case which has been found to date by Mr. Donofrio has been documented with great attention to all these details. This has been accomplished by downloading the full code of the original un-tainted pages and the corrupted revisions from the Waybackmachine's date stamped archive, along with screenshots of the pages as they appeared in browsers such as Mozilla Firefox before and after the tampering occurred, and the restored pages.

The volume of data is significant and Mr. Donofrio is in the process of making the entire archive available to the public. The article he has published today contains what he refers to as a "document dump". It is in reality evidence. The reader is strongly encouraged to view the images which document Justia's actions. Upon doing so, every member of congress should be notified of the existence of this information. Such usurpation of American history and law cannot be allowed.

Screenshots and links have been sent to several specific media contacts which include the Washington Times, Accuracy In Media, and Free Republic. In the interest of putting this information in front of as many eyes as possible before publication, it has been made freely available since Friday October 18, 2011 in the form of screenshots and saved page code. Should the information presented here be altered on the internet following publication, there will be a significant number of media outlets with knowledge and proof of any further alterations to internet archives.

The penalty associated with violating the "False Writings Statute", 18 U.S.C. 1018 is jail and a fine for each count. With at least 25 counts if not more, this could mean upwards of 25 years in prison. The manipulation of Supreme Court cases is an offense against all Americans, and the Court itself. If like Fast and Furious this scandal reaches directly to the White House, the ramifications are both dire and catastrophic.

Minor v. Happersett defined the one specific term which Barack Obama could not overcome with "Hope and Change" though he could 'hope' someone would 'change' the cases which help define the term "Natural Born Citizen,". This case, if it had been sufficiently known to the public and media, and sufficiently documented by supporting citations, might have eliminated the possibility of Obama's nomination and/or election. Either Obama got lucky in this regard, or the "constitutional law professor" and former editor of the Harvard Law Review had some hand in directing the efforts to erase the very citations in law which define him as a citizen, and at the same time rule him out as a constitutional candidate for President of the United States.

Just as certainly as the corruption at Justia.com has been documented and archived, more will be revealed. Stay tuned, it is expected that this information will generate some significant updates. They will be reported here as they happen.

Continue reading on Examiner.com JustiaGate - Portland Civil Rights | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-portland/justiagate#ixzz1bRLDalkH

__._,_.___

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic

Messages in this topic (1)

Recent Activity:

Visit Your Group

Report any problems, suggestions or abuse to Individual-Sovereignty-owner@yahoogroups.com

MARKETPLACE

Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

.

__,_._,___

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Income vs. Consumption Tax: My Take

In other words, MJ, for the hourly worker that has occasional
overtime, (read MOST of American workers), absolutely nothing changes.
Thanks for searching and finding an article that says it so
succinctly.

On Oct 22, 7:30 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Income vs. Consumption Tax: My TakePosted byMichael S. Rozeffon October 22, 2011 03:06 AM
> This lengthy blog analyzes a simple case in order to argue that Rothbard is correct on the issue of income vs. consumption tax.  The last portion of it suggests that Cain's proposal is a Trojan Horse and that Ron Paul is the only candidate with the courage to address the main issue: the size and power of government itself. How the government finances itself by taxes is distinctly secondary to the power to tax us in the first place.
> Let s  analyze this issue of income vs. consumption taxation in the simplest possible way. Two people inhabit an island. Person P produces 5 fish a day. Person T has the power to tax person P by taking one fish from P s take. This is a lump-sum income tax. P is unable to hide any fish and T taxes P without any cost of taxation, i.e., assume no tax evasion and no costs of collecting the tax. There is no explicit pricing of the fish. Assume that P and T both live one period and then die. All of this is certain.
> Assume that P consumes all 5 fish a day prior to the appearance and taxation of T. P s income is 5 fish a day at each of two periods and his consumption is also 5 fish a day. T appears and announces the income tax. P must comply (by assumption). Fighting, escape and counter-measures are ruled out.
> In order to optimize, P works up to the point where the disutility of spending time fishing (working) equals the utility of getting a fish to eat.
> P has two options. First, he can work harder each period to produce 6 fish a day, one of which he hands over to T. If he does this, the income tax is a tax on his leisure time. His consumption is unchanged. He will do this if the additional disutility of work (the marginal disutility of work) is less than the additional utility of consumption. Second, he can work the same time, producing 5 and consuming 4. He does this if the marginal disutility of working to produce a sixth fish exceeds the marginal utility of consuming one fish fewer. (A third option, which is to produce 4 fish and consume 3, doesn t appear to be rational.) In this case, the tax manifests itself as a tax on both income and consumption.
> If T knows P s utility function, then he can set a tax rate instead of a lump-sum tax of one fish. If he knows that P wants to produce and consume 5 fish net of tax, then he sets the income tax rate at 16.67 percent. When P produces 6 fish. he then gives up one and consumes the other 5. If he knows that P wants to work only enough to produce 5 fish, then he sets the income tax rate at 20 percent.
> Now we analyze a consumption tax. T wants to take one fish. T has to choose a tax rate t such that t x C = 1 fish, where C = P s fish consumption. P has to find it rational to produce C + tC fish and hand tC fish over to P, where t C = 1. Therefore, t = 1/C. The way that this tax works is that after P consumes some fish, he then is forced to work enough additional time so as to produce one fish for T. If P consumes 5 fish, he must work enough to generate one more fish for T. The consumption tax is 20 percent of the fish consumed. His implicit income tax rate via this consumption tax is 1/6 = 16.67 percent. T sets the consumption tax at this rate. If P consumes 4 fish, then he must work to produce 5 fish. Then T sets the consumption tax at 25 percent, and the implied income tax rate is 20 percent.
> T has to know P s utility for work and leisure when setting the consumption tax rate so as to net himself one fish. He also needed to know that in order to set an income tax rate.
> I ve made T s taxation a given amount, one fish, and then showed at what rates T can get what he wants. The idea is that this represents a fixed amount of government spending. T will take and eat that one fish, and he wants to set either an income tax or a consumption tax that achieves that result. He can use either tax, a consumption tax or an income tax. They both come down to a tax on P s labor for his benefit. This is simultaneously a tax on P s leisure, since labor time takes away from leisure time.
> In this modeling of the taxation, Rothbard is correct. The intuition is that the tax man can get a given take by either means, income or consumption, by adjusting the tax rates. The size of the tax man s spending is the tax. The nature of the tax and the rates chosen to achieve the tax are a matter of indifference to the taxpayer P in this simple model.
> Suppose that we allow two time periods and suppose that P is able to postpone consumption by storing fish for one period. This may have utility for him, in which case there is an implicit rate of return or yield from storage. Suppose, for example, that P can work harder and easier when he is younger. He prefers to produce 6 fish in period one of which he saves one and consumes 5. In period two, he produces 4 fish and saves none. He then consumes 5 fish, consisting of the 4 from period two production and the one that he saved.
> Along comes T who wants some of P s fish. His taxation policy depends on what sort of consumption through time that he prefers. He too can save and store fish. What he will do is tax P more heavily in period one and save fish for later consumption. It seems intuitive that if he knows P s utility function he can select either consumption or income tax rates to achieve his tax take.
> The type of tax starts to matter both to producers and government when we allow more than one producer, each of whom has different utility functions. Further complication arises when each producer has distinctive production opportunities and obtains finance from other savers. A single tax rate then affects different producers differently. To produce a given take, the tax man will have to discriminate among producers by imposing different tax rates and using different kinds of taxes. The costs of tax evasion are another realistic factor.
> However, even if they matter, all that this does is get people arguing with one another and fighting one another over who is going to work to pay the taxes. These disputes cloud a larger issue, which is the overall size of the taxes, and even that is not the main issue. Government spending has to be coming out of the work product of Americans. It is the best single measure of total taxes that we have. Government spending is the main issue. It s the main issue, in my view, because it s so enormously wasteful and destructive.
> In my opinion, any new form of taxation of Americans, such as a value-added tax or a national sales tax, under the guise of saving the system or balancing the federal government s budget, is a Trojan Horse. It should be strongly and immediately rejected by Americans. It is only going to enslave us further. Cain s plan and any similar plans will end up raising taxes and thereby assuring that government spending is not cut.
> Ron Paul has had the courage to recommend eliminating five government departments. That s for starters. He has the correct focus. That results in tax cuts. That results in more freedom. That results in less waste and less destruction of productive opportunities.
> Getting worked up over different forms of taxation is a diversion from the main issue, which is the power of government to tax in the first place and then use the resources forcibly extracted from laborers (producers) so wastefully.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Income vs. Consumption Tax: My Take

Excuse, "Week 4"  should have read,  "One Period". 

On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:

But? 

 

What if T goes to Memphis,  traveling at 15 miles per hour,  and P catches oysters in week 3. The  "fighting escape and counter measures are allowed in Week 4", after T realizes that there is no disutility for P,  and T has no mechanism without decree to tax P's oysters? 

 

 No wonder why most of the Paul supporters are Crackpots, and that Paul only chooses to address his core audience of crackpots, versus trying to address the American people or provide a campaign whch would enlarge his consitiuency. 

 

 

 

On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 9:30 AM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Income vs. Consumption Tax: My Take
Posted by Michael S. Rozeff on October 22, 2011 03:06 AM

This lengthy blog analyzes a simple case in order to argue that Rothbard is correct on the issue of income vs. consumption tax.  The last portion of it suggests that Cain's proposal is a Trojan Horse and that Ron Paul is the only candidate with the courage to address the main issue: the size and power of government itself. How the government finances itself by taxes is distinctly secondary to the power to tax us in the first place.

Let's  analyze this issue of income vs. consumption taxation in the simplest possible way. Two people inhabit an island. Person P produces 5 fish a day. Person T has the power to tax person P by taking one fish from P's take. This is a lump-sum income tax. P is unable to hide any fish and T taxes P without any cost of taxation, i.e., assume no tax evasion and no costs of collecting the tax. There is no explicit pricing of the fish. Assume that P and T both live one period and then die. All of this is certain.

Assume that P consumes all 5 fish a day prior to the appearance and taxation of T. P's income is 5 fish a day at each of two periods and his consumption is also 5 fish a day. T appears and announces the income tax. P must comply (by assumption). Fighting, escape and counter-measures are ruled out.

In order to optimize, P works up to the point where the disutility of spending time fishing (working) equals the utility of getting a fish to eat.

P has two options. First, he can work harder each period to produce 6 fish a day, one of which he hands over to T. If he does this, the income tax is a tax on his leisure time. His consumption is unchanged. He will do this if the additional disutility of work (the marginal disutility of work) is less than the additional utility of consumption. Second, he can work the same time, producing 5 and consuming 4. He does this if the marginal disutility of working to produce a sixth fish exceeds the marginal utility of consuming one fish fewer. (A third option, which is to produce 4 fish and consume 3, doesn't appear to be rational.) In this case, the tax manifests itself as a tax on both income and consumption.

If T knows P's utility function, then he can set a tax rate instead of a lump-sum tax of one fish. If he knows that P wants to produce and consume 5 fish net of tax, then he sets the income tax rate at 16.67 percent. When P produces 6 fish. he then gives up one and consumes the other 5. If he knows that P wants to work only enough to produce 5 fish, then he sets the income tax rate at 20 percent.

Now we analyze a consumption tax. T wants to take one fish. T has to choose a tax rate t such that t x C = 1 fish, where C = P's fish consumption. P has to find it rational to produce C + tC fish and hand tC fish over to P, where t C = 1. Therefore, t = 1/C. The way that this tax works is that after P consumes some fish, he then is forced to work enough additional time so as to produce one fish for T. If P consumes 5 fish, he must work enough to generate one more fish for T. The consumption tax is 20 percent of the fish consumed. His implicit income tax rate via this consumption tax is 1/6 = 16.67 percent. T sets the consumption tax at this rate. If P consumes 4 fish, then he must work to produce 5 fish. Then T sets the consumption tax at 25 percent, and the implied income tax rate is 20 percent.

T has to know P's utility for work and leisure when setting the consumption tax rate so as to net himself one fish. He also needed to know that in order to set an income tax rate.

I've made T's taxation a given amount, one fish, and then showed at what rates T can get what he wants. The idea is that this represents a fixed amount of government spending. T will take and eat that one fish, and he wants to set either an income tax or a consumption tax that achieves that result. He can use either tax, a consumption tax or an income tax. They both come down to a tax on P's labor for his benefit. This is simultaneously a tax on P's leisure, since labor time takes away from leisure time.

In this modeling of the taxation, Rothbard is correct. The intuition is that the tax man can get a given take by either means, income or consumption, by adjusting the tax rates. The size of the tax man's spending is the tax. The nature of the tax and the rates chosen to achieve the tax are a matter of indifference to the taxpayer P in this simple model.

Suppose that we allow two time periods and suppose that P is able to postpone consumption by storing fish for one period. This may have utility for him, in which case there is an implicit rate of return or yield from storage. Suppose, for example, that P can work harder and easier when he is younger. He prefers to produce 6 fish in period one of which he saves one and consumes 5. In period two, he produces 4 fish and saves none. He then consumes 5 fish, consisting of the 4 from period two production and the one that he saved.

Along comes T who wants some of P's fish. His taxation policy depends on what sort of consumption through time that he prefers. He too can save and store fish. What he will do is tax P more heavily in period one and save fish for later consumption. It seems intuitive that if he knows P's utility function he can select either consumption or income tax rates to achieve his tax take.

The type of tax starts to matter both to producers and government when we allow more than one producer, each of whom has different utility functions. Further complication arises when each producer has distinctive production opportunities and obtains finance from other savers. A single tax rate then affects different producers differently. To produce a given take, the tax man will have to discriminate among producers by imposing different tax rates and using different kinds of taxes. The costs of tax evasion are another realistic factor.

However, even if they matter, all that this does is get people arguing with one another and fighting one another over who is going to work to pay the taxes. These disputes cloud a larger issue, which is the overall size of the taxes, and even that is not the main issue. Government spending has to be coming out of the work product of Americans. It is the best single measure of total taxes that we have. Government spending is the main issue. It's the main issue, in my view, because it's so enormously wasteful and destructive.

In my opinion, any new form of taxation of Americans, such as a value-added tax or a national sales tax, under the guise of saving the system or balancing the federal government's budget, is a Trojan Horse. It should be strongly and immediately rejected by Americans. It is only going to enslave us further. Cain's plan and any similar plans will end up raising taxes and thereby assuring that government spending is not cut.

Ron Paul has had the courage to recommend eliminating five government departments. That's for starters. He has the correct focus. That results in tax cuts. That results in more freedom. That results in less waste and less destruction of productive opportunities.

Getting worked up over different forms of taxation is a diversion from the main issue, which is the power of government to tax in the first place and then use the resources forcibly extracted from laborers (producers) so wastefully.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Income vs. Consumption Tax: My Take

But? 

 

What if T goes to Memphis,  traveling at 15 miles per hour,  and P catches oysters in week 3. The  "fighting escape and counter measures are allowed in Week 4", after T realizes that there is no disutility for P,  and T has no mechanism without decree to tax P's oysters? 

 

 No wonder why most of the Paul supporters are Crackpots, and that Paul only chooses to address his core audience of crackpots, versus trying to address the American people or provide a campaign whch would enlarge his consitiuency. 

 

 

 

On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 9:30 AM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Income vs. Consumption Tax: My Take
Posted by Michael S. Rozeff on October 22, 2011 03:06 AM

This lengthy blog analyzes a simple case in order to argue that Rothbard is correct on the issue of income vs. consumption tax.  The last portion of it suggests that Cain's proposal is a Trojan Horse and that Ron Paul is the only candidate with the courage to address the main issue: the size and power of government itself. How the government finances itself by taxes is distinctly secondary to the power to tax us in the first place.

Let's  analyze this issue of income vs. consumption taxation in the simplest possible way. Two people inhabit an island. Person P produces 5 fish a day. Person T has the power to tax person P by taking one fish from P's take. This is a lump-sum income tax. P is unable to hide any fish and T taxes P without any cost of taxation, i.e., assume no tax evasion and no costs of collecting the tax. There is no explicit pricing of the fish. Assume that P and T both live one period and then die. All of this is certain.

Assume that P consumes all 5 fish a day prior to the appearance and taxation of T. P's income is 5 fish a day at each of two periods and his consumption is also 5 fish a day. T appears and announces the income tax. P must comply (by assumption). Fighting, escape and counter-measures are ruled out.

In order to optimize, P works up to the point where the disutility of spending time fishing (working) equals the utility of getting a fish to eat.

P has two options. First, he can work harder each period to produce 6 fish a day, one of which he hands over to T. If he does this, the income tax is a tax on his leisure time. His consumption is unchanged. He will do this if the additional disutility of work (the marginal disutility of work) is less than the additional utility of consumption. Second, he can work the same time, producing 5 and consuming 4. He does this if the marginal disutility of working to produce a sixth fish exceeds the marginal utility of consuming one fish fewer. (A third option, which is to produce 4 fish and consume 3, doesn't appear to be rational.) In this case, the tax manifests itself as a tax on both income and consumption.

If T knows P's utility function, then he can set a tax rate instead of a lump-sum tax of one fish. If he knows that P wants to produce and consume 5 fish net of tax, then he sets the income tax rate at 16.67 percent. When P produces 6 fish. he then gives up one and consumes the other 5. If he knows that P wants to work only enough to produce 5 fish, then he sets the income tax rate at 20 percent.

Now we analyze a consumption tax. T wants to take one fish. T has to choose a tax rate t such that t x C = 1 fish, where C = P's fish consumption. P has to find it rational to produce C + tC fish and hand tC fish over to P, where t C = 1. Therefore, t = 1/C. The way that this tax works is that after P consumes some fish, he then is forced to work enough additional time so as to produce one fish for T. If P consumes 5 fish, he must work enough to generate one more fish for T. The consumption tax is 20 percent of the fish consumed. His implicit income tax rate via this consumption tax is 1/6 = 16.67 percent. T sets the consumption tax at this rate. If P consumes 4 fish, then he must work to produce 5 fish. Then T sets the consumption tax at 25 percent, and the implied income tax rate is 20 percent.

T has to know P's utility for work and leisure when setting the consumption tax rate so as to net himself one fish. He also needed to know that in order to set an income tax rate.

I've made T's taxation a given amount, one fish, and then showed at what rates T can get what he wants. The idea is that this represents a fixed amount of government spending. T will take and eat that one fish, and he wants to set either an income tax or a consumption tax that achieves that result. He can use either tax, a consumption tax or an income tax. They both come down to a tax on P's labor for his benefit. This is simultaneously a tax on P's leisure, since labor time takes away from leisure time.

In this modeling of the taxation, Rothbard is correct. The intuition is that the tax man can get a given take by either means, income or consumption, by adjusting the tax rates. The size of the tax man's spending is the tax. The nature of the tax and the rates chosen to achieve the tax are a matter of indifference to the taxpayer P in this simple model.

Suppose that we allow two time periods and suppose that P is able to postpone consumption by storing fish for one period. This may have utility for him, in which case there is an implicit rate of return or yield from storage. Suppose, for example, that P can work harder and easier when he is younger. He prefers to produce 6 fish in period one of which he saves one and consumes 5. In period two, he produces 4 fish and saves none. He then consumes 5 fish, consisting of the 4 from period two production and the one that he saved.

Along comes T who wants some of P's fish. His taxation policy depends on what sort of consumption through time that he prefers. He too can save and store fish. What he will do is tax P more heavily in period one and save fish for later consumption. It seems intuitive that if he knows P's utility function he can select either consumption or income tax rates to achieve his tax take.

The type of tax starts to matter both to producers and government when we allow more than one producer, each of whom has different utility functions. Further complication arises when each producer has distinctive production opportunities and obtains finance from other savers. A single tax rate then affects different producers differently. To produce a given take, the tax man will have to discriminate among producers by imposing different tax rates and using different kinds of taxes. The costs of tax evasion are another realistic factor.

However, even if they matter, all that this does is get people arguing with one another and fighting one another over who is going to work to pay the taxes. These disputes cloud a larger issue, which is the overall size of the taxes, and even that is not the main issue. Government spending has to be coming out of the work product of Americans. It is the best single measure of total taxes that we have. Government spending is the main issue. It's the main issue, in my view, because it's so enormously wasteful and destructive.

In my opinion, any new form of taxation of Americans, such as a value-added tax or a national sales tax, under the guise of saving the system or balancing the federal government's budget, is a Trojan Horse. It should be strongly and immediately rejected by Americans. It is only going to enslave us further. Cain's plan and any similar plans will end up raising taxes and thereby assuring that government spending is not cut.

Ron Paul has had the courage to recommend eliminating five government departments. That's for starters. He has the correct focus. That results in tax cuts. That results in more freedom. That results in less waste and less destruction of productive opportunities.

Getting worked up over different forms of taxation is a diversion from the main issue, which is the power of government to tax in the first place and then use the resources forcibly extracted from laborers (producers) so wastefully.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.