Application before the European Court of Human Rights (3)
II. EXPOSÉ DES FAITS
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
WEERGAVE VAN DE FEITEN
The undersigned has attempted to expose at law the difference in power between the financial world and the rest of society. This difference in power becomes manifest in the interest that is required to be paid on loans in addition to the redemption sum, making a balanced economic exchange between parties impossible and sending out a hierarchical message that you should bring in more that you have contributed. Applied recurrently, this leads to vertical concentrations of power rather than horizontal economic communication based on constitutional “equality” between people. On the basis of these differences in power, social hierarchy, both public and private, will form and stabilise itself as layers. They called this the caste system in India, apartheid in South Africa, segregation in the USA and fascism in Germany. Religion calls it faith and within the economy, we call it science.
In 2006, the undersigned attempted to raise this subject without obligation in an effort to initiate a discussion with the Dutch Authorities. This correspondence came to nothing, after which the undersigned lodged an objection against a provisional corporation tax assessment.
The best observation made during the entire proceedings was by a tax inspector on 26 March 2007:
The problem that you address is beyond the scope of this notice of objection.
This statement hovered over the proceedings throughout and none of the Dutch legal authorities were brave enough to address the crux of the matter raised. It was solved legally and technically, thus obviating the need to discuss its content.
17 April 2008 Ruling of the District Court of Arnhem, tax section:
Interest forms part of profit.
28 July 2009 Ruling of the Court of Appeal Arnhem, tax section:
Interest forms part of profit
The European Court also charges interest. EHRM, 16 April 2002, S.A. Dangeville v France, Application No: 36677/97
Nowhere has the undersigned contended that interest is not part of profit within the given context. The real issue, the assumption that money is worth money in the form of interest, creates a context in which the government designates the winner in advance. This has turned legitimate economic robbery into a building block of contemporary Western society: bring in more than you actually contribute: the pursuit of profit.
The undersigned does, of course, realise that today’s economic world hinges entirely on this. But if the consequence of this is a recurrent misuse of power and conditioning, then in an open and independent legal system, which is an integral part of society, it must be possible to address the essence at law.
In its ruling of 17 September 2010, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands invoked article 81 of the Dutch constitution:
If the Supreme Court decides that a complaint raised cannot lead to cassation and does not demand that questions of law be answered in the interests of the unity or development of the law, the Court may, when stating the grounds for its decision, confine itself to this ruling.
Neither did the Supreme Court address the content of the charge, thus leaving the bureaucratic power mechanism as it was. Bringing in more than you contribute, the paper translation of profit. This explains why in his book and the documentary made about it, The Corporation*, Joel Bakan clinically diagnoses the business enterprise as legal entity as psychopathic. Nowadays, an enterprise as entity is forced to bring in more than it contributes and as a consequence, it is not able to develop any empathy towards the outside world itself. It is a ‘luxury’ that it cannot afford in mutually competitive surroundings.
Because of the persistent belief in competition, society and individuals allow themselves to be governed by a social hierarchy of winners.
The undersigned has indicated that overestimating the efficiency of competition undermines reason, common sense and just balance.
It was also regularly brought to the fore and suggested during these proceedings that the problems I raised did not belong in a court of law but in parliament. (Tax and Customs Administration, 26 March 2007 Appendix A p. 18) The undersigned remains of the opinion that the assumption that money is worth money in the form of interest is a political choice that has already been made and can therefore be considered at law. This leads me to the question of whether the Dutch legal system believes that something becomes the truth just because a parliamentary majority is in favour of it. For the undersigned that would mean that in the Netherlands, the separation of powers and the independence required to arrive at a legal judgement are, at the very least, heavily under pressure, never mind the spirit of the law.
- Summary of the attempt at entering into a dialogue with the authorities -
Five years ago (in 2006) I entered into a dialogue with the public authorities (and the constitutional state.) The Supreme Court decision has now formally ended this dialogue.
A summary of the attempt at dialogue with the public authorities can be found at:
“Before the law”, the introduction to Orson Welles’ film of Kafka’s book The Trial, is also worthwhile viewing: