Re: Citizenship of Prince Philip of Mountbatten

>Subject: Re: Citizenship of Prince Philip of Mountbatten
>From: Katherine Griffis-Greenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>Date: 12/2/2003 9:51 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>On 02 Dec 2003 04:20:13 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MarianneLuban)
>in misc.legal, wrote the following:
>
>>I'm not reading any more of your strange examples of  ordinary,
>high-earning,
>>citizens "who were extradited for going to live abroad, renouncing their
>>American citizenship and no longer paying US taxes"--because none of the
>>examples you cited were anything even close to that.  All you produced were
>a
>>bunch of crooks.   You have spent an extraordinary amount of time searching
>for
>>examples of what I asked for--and failed.
>>So why don't you just give up--stop posting this irrelevant  BS and do
>>something more productive with your time?
>
>Fine by me: while you have a strange idea that tax evasion is not a
>"crime," know that people who are involved in fraudulent or criminal
>activities also evade taxes within the body of their crimes and are
>rightfully charged with them as well.  In short, people who evade taxes
>by fleeing the country  ARE a "bunch of crooks," and are usually
>involved in a number of illegal schemes to avoid taxes and accumulate
>money. 

That may be the case in many instances--but you have still failed to provide
any examples of persons who were not wanted for any other fraudulent activity
being extradited *only* because they chose to live in another country, renounce
their US citizenship, and *not* pay taxes.   What you presented were examples
of people who were involved in illegal money-making  schemes that were
defrauding other people--not simply depriving the US treasury of the tax on
their  legally-obtained earnings.  Once these people were extradited or had
voluntarily returned to the US, they were charged with income tax evasion AMONG
OTHER THINGS but not one was extradited from anywhere simply for income tax
evasion.

That this wasn't happening was indicated by something I posted a couple of days
ago--and this would have tipped off anyone but you:

"http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24084

Note where it says: "The high U.S. levies have forced some foreign tax experts
to advise American clients to serious consider abandoning their citizenship. 

One international lawyer who asked not to be named told Dow Jones Newswire: "If
you have an estate worth $2 million-$3 million and you are not planning to
return to the U.S., and you don't travel there frequently, then it may not be a
bad idea." "

I think, in this case, logic requires the conclusion that these lawyers would
not be advising their clients to do the above--if  they thought the client was
due to be extradited back to the states for evading the taxes, anyway.

Income tax evasion is against the law and considered a crime.  You claim that I
dispute this, but I never have.  That is just some "red herring" you have
thrown in to throw the readers off the track--to distract them from the fact
that you have not been able to show a case of an individual who was extradited
from another land *only* because of income tax evasion.  As for my own opinion,
it is this--and I will state it quite clearly:  All people should be free in
this world to live where they like.  I consider it a privilege to be a US
citizen.  To me, my country is still the greatest in the world.  Right now, I
cannot conceive of myself saying like "The man Without a Country", that story
we all learned when we were kids, "I hope I shall never again see my native
land".   However, if there are certain individuals who, out of sheer greed, are
willing to forego "seeing their native land", then so be it.  But should they
be considered "criminals"?  I think not.  Someday, these people might be in a
position to regret this decision, too, like that man in the story.  On the
other hand, for the US government to say "You are not free to renounce your US
citizenship and still owe the US taxes on your earnings abroad"--that comes
from greed, as well.  That amounts to denying the right of an individual to be
free to exist on earth as anything *but* as a citizen of the US, once he was
born into or acquired this status.  In other words, the US goverment is playing
the role of God.  I don't think our Founding Fathers, who drew up the
Constitution, had this in mind.  Perhaps, Griffis, you have forgotten the
"Boston Tea Party", which occurred because the people living in the colonies no
longer wanted to pay taxes on British goods.  The message to England was "We
want to live here now.  We no longer wish to be subjects of the Crown.  We are
free men by the law of God."  At that time, the British believed they could
still exert rule over these people--that they were British citizens living on
land that belonged to England.  At least they had that excuse.  But the
colonists wanted their "own land"
and so war was the result.  And that is how America began.  Now the US is
saying, effectively, "No matter where you choose to live, you still belong to
us.  We will exert jurisdiction over you."  Now, if the US citizen living
abroad, no matter if his citizenship is renounced, is defrauding other US
citizens or helping these parties to defraud the US government while the other
parties are still in the US--then there is justification for this, I think. 
But, if a person merely says "US taxes are too high.  I want to go to live
somewhere else and make money there."--then that person should have a right to
do so.  However, if that person living abroad is STILL making money in the US,
then he should be taxed according to the law of where the revenue is being
produced.

>Normal citizens who leave the country, renounce citizenship, and PAY
>their personal share of taxes as required under HRA 1996 are obviously
>NOT crooks, but those who do leave, renounce and refuse to pay taxes
>will meet the definition of _criminal_ under IRS and US government
>regulations.

See the above.  

>This is why the IRS does also pursue such people under a number of
>different charges, such as fraud (which, as I noted earlier, is
>something every jurisdiction internationally considers a crime).  As tax
>evasion and/or avoidance of full tax payment is also a misrepresentation
>of one's true monetary worth (and thus, _fraud_), this is why the IRS
>often couches the charges in this fashion, when they also include tax
>evasion.

That is your interpretation.  You seem to be indicating that the US government
cares nothing about the fraudulent activity that injures other people and is
only concerned with the tax evasion, thereby "couching the charges" in some way
to include fraudulent activity so that the evaders can be extradited and
brought to account on the tax evasion.  But your own examples prove you wrong.

>Say what you will, but the IRS International Division does watch for
>criminal tax evasion under non-compliance with HRA 1996, and despite
>your best efforts to circumlocute the issue, agents in the International
>Criminal Investigation arena ARE involved in the "...the overall United
>States strategy to combat terrorism, money laundering, _tax evasion_,
>and international crime." (from IRS URL on strategy, given earlier).  As
>part of their powers in this arena is the "... location and extradition
>of fugitives."   This includes _tax fugitives_ as well.

And this is written by you for the sole purpse of  "evading" the issue.  I
asked you for an example of someone having been extradited for solely being "a
tax fugitive" (your language) and you have come up dry.  

>Perhaps being willfully blind to such activities as criminal is merely a
>choice on your part;

Perhaps it is your choice to accuse me of  not knowing the law.  It seems so. 
However, I do know the law.  Whether I can agree to its fairness--well, perhaps
I do  not.  That is my choice--yes.  Do I still have freedom of choice?  I
think so.  Ever since I first encountered you years ago, it seems to me that
you have put yourself in the position of telling me what I am free to say and I
have gone to great lengths to show you that I do not regard you as the arbiter
of that.  In this matter, the US government is on my side, at least.  

> as such, you are welcome to it.

What?  A position falsely stated by you?
No, thank you.  I have never accepted your characterization of my position on
anything.  No, I am not "willfully blind" to anything.  













"THE EXODUS CHRONICLES: Beliefs, Legends & Rumors from Antiquity Regarding the
Exodus of the Jews from Egypt" by Marianne Luban
You'll never think about the Biblical Book of Exodus in the same way again!
http://www.geocities.com/scribelist/Exodus2.html