Midilibre.fr
Tous les blogs | Alerter le modérateur| Envoyer à un ami | Créer un Blog

27/11/2011

One

Vers l'unité

 

 

 

Lire la suite

15/11/2011

Quelle marché.................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????

 

source: Reuters

La BCE achète de la dette italienne après l'adjudication

lundi 14 novembre 2011 13h05
 

 

LONDRES, 14 novembre (Reuters) - La Banque centrale européenne a commencé à acheter de la dette italienne sur le marché secondaire, en raison d'une montée des taux de rendement à la suite d'une adjudication d'obligations à cinq ans lundi matin.

Cette adjudication de trois milliards d'euros a produit un rendement de 6,29%, le plus haut depuis l'introduction de l'euro, coupant court à l'effet apaisant qu'avait produit la nomination de Mario Monti à la présidence du Conseil italien.

Les marchés se recentrent maintenant sur l'ampleur de la tâche que Mario Monti doit accomplir, ce qui ne les rassure pas.

Un trader a dit que la BCE achetait du papier à échéance 2018 et un autre a signalé qu'elle portait son effort sur le papier de quatre à cinq ans.

Le rendement du papier italien à cinq ans gagnait deux points de base à 6,55%, après un pic de séance autour de 6,63%. (Kristen Donovan, Wilfrid Exbrayat pour le service français, édité par Dominique Rodriguez)

Lire la suite

13/11/2011

Appel contre le jugement de l’administration fiscale (4)

 

Part I

 

Part II

 

Parti III

 

 

 

d) La non-conformité avec le Traité européen concernant les droits de l’homme

Étant donné qu’un contrôle de constitutionnalité au sein du système juridique néerlandais semble très difficile (ce qui en soit constitue déjà un gros problème juridique, économique et démocratique), il est important de voir si le postulat voulant que l’argent vaille en soi de l’argent (intérêts) est conforme aux traités. Comme M. Van der Laan l’a indiqué comme suit dans l’exposé des motifs :

« La seule possibilité de contrôler l’exécution des lois au sens formel est d’en examiner la conformité avec les traités. Les traités sont des règles d’ordre supérieur. On pourra songer à cet égard à l’examen de la conformité de la législation fiscale au Traité CEE. Or, votre requête ne comporte aucun élément ni argument concrets permettant de déduire que la loi sur l’impôt sur les sociétés ne serait pas conforme à un ou plusieurs traités internationaux. »

Les Pays-Bas, en signant le Traité européen pour les droits de l’homme, ont montré que ce traité devait être respecté. Ci-après figurent les articles dudit traité que je considère en non-conformité avec le fait de réclamer des intérêts et d’obliger à les payer qui crée d’emblée une injustice, et qui est par ailleurs à l’origine de toute cette bureaucratie galopante devenue incontrôlable.

Article 1

Obligation de respecter les droits de l’homme

La réclamation et le paiement d’intérêts ont fait que nous nous sommes retrouvés piégés dans une gigantesque toile d’araignée bureaucratique commune, nous empêchant de réagir ici et maintenant de façon suffisamment efficace face aux problèmes et défis sociaux et de droit constitutionnel. Ou comme Simon Schama exprime la vision de Tocqueville dans son livre sur la Révolution française :

Dans cette conception, il n’existait pas de problèmes à court terme, mais uniquement des problèmes structurels profondément enracinés qui ne pouvaient être modifiés – même pas par la Révolution – car il* voyait une répétition sans fin ni espoir des maux de la centralisation et de la poigne de fer du despotisme bureaucratique dans l’histoire de la France.

                                                              Simon Schama, Kroniek van de Franse Revolutie (Citizens : A Chronicle of the French Revolution)

* Tocqueville

Celui qui réclame des intérêts empoche son profit en se basant sur le postulat voulant que l’argent vaille de l’argent en soi, sans se soucier outre mesure de l’homme ni de la société ; il n’est intéressé que par l’argent et est en quelque sorte un psychopathe bureaucratique ayant perdu toute empathie pour le monde dans lequel il vit après l’avoir troquée contre le monde en papier à deux dimensions, le profit et la croissance, qui permet de se soustraire à la confrontation. Quant au payeur d’intérêts, il se comporte comme un docile garçon de courses au service de ce bureaucrate sans empathie, l’un et l’autre étant prisonniers d’une énorme machine bureaucratique qui s’est emballée. Les deux sont devenus les rouages insignifiants d’un mécanisme insensé dont le but existe bien sur le papier : le « profit ». Un robot conditionné et doté de très peu de sentiment et de responsabilité pour l’homme, la société et les conditions de vie. La responsabilité pour le profit est bien exercée, mais la vie et l’humanité sont réduites à des éléments marginaux gênants voire, dans la plupart des cas, néfastes pour le profit potentiel. Sauf si l’homme peut être gavé, comme un animal de consommation docile, avec encore plus de choses insensées en faveur du profit de papier, la plus importante priorité de nos sociétés. Même lorsque l’homme aspire à apporter une contribution plus durable, il est vite rappelé à l’ordre pour se ranger à l’objectif de l’actuel contrat social, « d’abord le profit, on verra ensuite pour le reste ! »Naturellement, et fort heureusement encore, beaucoup de choses très utiles sont produites par d’honnêtes citoyens et entrepreneurs, mais eux aussi sont piégés dans l’étouffant monde bureaucratique.

Article 2

Droit à la vie

C’est le droit du plus fort (bureaucratiquement parlant) qui règne - sur les plans politique, économique, juridique et démocratique - puisqu’il existe le postulat voulant que l’argent vaille en soi de l’argent. Ceci a conduit à une prison bureaucratique ou à un fascisme bureaucratique au détriment de la vie elle-même.

Hitler, le chef des conspirateurs nazis jugés maintenant devant vous, disait paraît-il, en parlant de leurs projets guerriers : « Je donnerai une raison de propagande pour commencer la guerre, peu importe qu’elle soit vraie ou fausse. On ne demandera pas au vainqueur s’il disait alors vrai ou pas. Pour commencer et faire la guerre, ce n’est pas le droit qui compte, c’est la victoire. Le droit est du côté du plus fort. »

                                                              Un des plaignants lors du procès de Nuremberg

La concurrence réciproque étant l’un de nos principaux principes économiques et les personnes réclamant des intérêts étant juridiquement, économiquement et politiquement nettement mieux protégées que les entrepreneurs, cette situation a entraîné au fil du temps une grande indifférence sociale et un sentiment général d’impuissance à pouvoir et avoir le droit d’entreprendre dans l’intérêt du bien-être individuel et commun de la société. Collaborer ou saboter, tel est le choix peu édifiant qui s’offre aujourd’hui. Si nous souhaitons survivre en tant qu’humanité, nous devrons à nouveau exiger notre souveraineté individuelle, au service de la société. Celui qui réclame des intérêts est juridiquement bien mieux protégé que celui qui doit les payer, et il peut exiger ses droits à tout moment sans avoir pour autant œuvré de façon constructive à la société. Ce « monde de papier » a pris aujourd’hui le pouvoir au détriment de l’existence humaine.

« Inspecteur » Licata : Vous avez construit votre richesse sur le sang, et très patiemment et méthodiquement, vous l’avez fait croître en faisant les choses les plus abjectes.

Stefan Litvak / Kiriu (ancien nazi ayant pris l’identité d’une victime de l’holocauste) : Non, ce n’est pas moi. C’est l’histoire. L’histoire est un suite de carnages. Ce n’est pas pire qu’il y a mille ans. Les plus faibles s’en défendent, les plus forts acceptent que nous ne soyons pas parfaits. Il en a toujours été ainsi. Voilà cinquante ans que j’attends que vous veniez, monsieur Personne. Mais je suis serein.
Car je suis l’histoire de maintenant ….. Et vous ne pouvez rien y faire.
La vérité est un mot obscène. C’est ce que tout le monde croit. La vérité est que je m’appelle depuis déjà cinquante ans Stefan Litvak. La vérité est que des gouvernements dépendent de mes banques. La vérité est que tout le monde veut entendre dire que l’argent est le fruit du mérite. Mais ça n’est pas vrai et tout le monde le sait. C’est l’argent qui dirige tout et on ne peut lui dire qu’il est couvert de sang.

Extrait de la série sur la mafia italienne La Piovra,
dernière partie saison 6



Aujourd’hui, l’homme n’est pas responsable. Aujourd’hui, ce sont des choses abstraites comme le marché, le monde financier, la politique, le monde des affaires qui sont responsables, mais pas l’homme lui-même. L’homme ne fait plus qu’exécuter gentiment sa tâche au sein de ces entités et institutions abstraites. En lui donnant une valeur en soi, l’argent est devenu un catalyseur du profit, un levier comptable qui vit désormais une vie autonome, au détriment de la vraie vie et de l’homme lui-même.

Celui qui réclame des intérêts et celui qui en paie doivent se libérer de ce carcan bureaucratique et de ce conditionnement.

Lire la suite

01/10/2011

Application before the European Court of Human Rights (6)

Sorry to those who waited a long time.

Part One

Part two

Part three 

Part four

Part five

The economic market is not merely a meeting of supply and demand, of goods and services. No, the economic market is also the supply and demand of safety and justice. By isolating ‘safety’ and ‘justice’ in institutes, the awareness that their essence can only be brought to life by individuals will easily fade. The market is also a meeting of politics and the judiciary and if these do not integrate within the market of goods and services, protectionism and economic apartheid will be the logical consequence.

 

Displayed in a diagram, this is as follows:

 

 

Financial world/dogmas and conditioning

legislative

executive

judicial

parliament

government

the courts

 

This is, roughly, the description Montesquieu gave. Then, as now, the financial world was spared. It exists, in fact, as a law unto itself, which emerges clearly in a saying by M.A. Rothschild (1744 – 1812): “Give me control of the financial system and I don’t care who makes the laws.” Or, more recently, as said by head of investment bank Goldman Sachs, Mr Lloyd Blankfein, on 8 November 2009 in The Times newspaper: I am doing “God’s work”.

 

The diagram below shows how to redress balance and reciprocity in the contract between governments and the people. Here, the financial world has again been subordinated to governments, serving (economic means of communication) society instead of being in an unassailable position above all the parties (above the law) as is the case today:

 

 


 

 

 

Rights and duties of man
A curtailing of freedom and hence the burden on the individual and society.

No individual, country or institution can lay claim to exclusivity – here everyone is “equal”.

 

legislative

 

executive

 

judicial

parliament

government administration

the courts

financial world/religions/science

day-to-day executive: individuals in society

the integration of the economy into democracy and the latter into the constitutional state

 

It forces governments and individuals to keep the foundations and the structures as simple as possible and to remain in contact with the ‘essence’ of co-existence, respecting the individual’s essential and responsible role in the whole and trying to reinforce it by giving it meaning.

 

Because money plays an almost all-defining and simultaneously uncontrollable role, the question is whether we are still able to gain a purchase on a common frame of reference. The cult of the winner that dominates politics, economy and sports represents the gap between people rather than bridging it. This winner’s mentality in our middle-class belief in profit and growth has something unbridled in it, and has no single framework within itself. Profit wants more profit, growth more growth, money wants more money. The winner will always find a way to win.

 

Hitler, the leader of the Nazi conspirators who are now on trial before you, is reported as having said, in reference to their war-like plans: "I shall give a propagandist cause for starting the war, never mind whether it be true or not. The victor shall not be asked later on whether he told the truth or not. In starting and making a war, not the right is what matters, but victory. The strongest has the right." 

                                           
  One of the prosecutors at the Nuremburg Tribunal

According to the undersigned, this is the dominant logic within the contemporary politico-economic system. War is to be replaced by competition and the extent of injustice is, of course, incomparable.

This brings me to the question whether within the Dutch constitutional state it is presumed that something automatically becomes a social truth if you secure a parliamentary majority for it.

If the answer is affirmative, then this system of justice can neither be independent nor can it function in relation to the whole. A fair trial is then open to all kinds of provisos, restrictions and fears, and there is little room for the spirit of the law, conscience and individuality in relation to the whole.

It is conditioning that rules in that case, often out of fear, and we are not permitted to call it into question. It goes without saying that the issue in this application that is brought before the court goes further than the Dutch government, the undersigned and the European Court. However, the spirit of the law can only be resuscitated if individuals and bodies have the courage to act not only for their own good, but also for the general good.

 Part 7 end.

29/09/2011

Question ridicule ou à réflichir?

 

Est-ce que « la vérité » économique, politique et juridique est elle très profitable au vie quotidienne?

27/09/2011

Vers l'unité

 

par le Maître —, par l'entremise de Benjamin Creme, le 14 août 2011

Quand les hommes finiront par faire le point de leur situation, ils devront sûrement reconnaître qu'aujourd'hui tout ne va pas pour le mieux sur la planète. Dans les domaines politique, économique, social et écologique, tous les pays sont confrontés à une pléthore de problèmes qui mettent à rude épreuve leurs ressources et leurs capacités. Même ceux qui semblent actuellement en position de force sur le plan économique connaissent des difficultés qui les privent de l'aisance dont leur prospérité devrait s'accompagner . Qu'est-ce donc qui empêche les nations de parvenir à un certain équilibre qui leur garantisse le bien-être ? Comment se fait-il que même des nations riches et bénéficiant d'une longue expérience se trouvent soudain plongées dans les dissensions et le chaos ? Pourquoi tant de souffrances et de luttes, pour tant de gens ? Qu'est-ce qui entrave une plus grande expression et manifestation de l'unité ?

Ces questions appellent des réponses aussi nombreuses que variées, mais qui ont pour dénominateur commun le moment particulier, dans l'histoire de cette Terre, où elles viennent à se poser.

Une époque sans équivalent

Notre époque est sans équivalent dans l'histoire du monde. Elle est le théâtre de changements considérables, qui dépassent l'entendement humain et transformeront la vie telle que nous la connaissons, en profondeur et pour toujours. Ces changements ont lieu sur tous les plans ; certains se produisent lentement, jusque dans la texture même de la croûte terrestre, tandis que d'autres se déroulent à une vitesse croissante qui rend d'autant plus difficile pour les hommes de relever les défis qu'ils leur présentent.

La voix du peuple

De quelle utilité pourraient bien être, dans ce contexte, les idées éculées de politiciens tournés vers le passé et empêtrés dans des mirages de prestige et de puissance ? Aujourd'hui c'est les peuples qui sont en avance sur leurs dirigeants, et qui énoncent à voix haute leur compréhension des événements et leurs besoins. Avec le temps, de pays en pays, la voix du peuple se fait sans cesse plus assurée et plus claire. Les multitudes savent désormais identifier et formuler leurs besoins : paix, travail et espoir en l'avenir. Un sentiment grandissant d'unité commence également à sous-tendre leurs revendications et leurs attentes. Les hommes savent qu'ils ne sont pas seuls au monde, qu'ils ont partout des millions de frères et sœurs avec qui ils partagent les mêmes problèmes et les mêmes besoins.

De cette manière, même s'ils ne sont pas conscients de la présence et des enseignements de Maitreya, ils répondent à son énergie et à l'influence qu'il exerce, et posent ainsi les fondations de l'avenir.

 

Source: Partage International septembre 2011

 

pour qui s'intéresse: Qui, est donc Maitreya?

19/06/2011

Application before the European Court of Human Rights (5)

 

Part One

Part two

Part three 

Part four

 

On the one hand, with hundreds of laws, legal proceedings and rules, politicians try to keep a grip on everything, while on the other hand, the financial economy is without structure. The undersigned once attempted to clarify this in a pamphlet, the politico-economic illusion:

 

It shows how 'paperprofit' by businesses leads to the production of more new 'laws and rules' by the government. But in fact we play hide-and-seek behind these paper 'truths', without taking responsibility.

That we cannot take responsibility is somehow logical because what is this all about? About apples or about bureaucratising added value? Moreover, taking responsibility is not interesting economically speaking, because, as a rule, it involves an increase in costs. If possible, you try to pass on the costs to an abstract whole, which has a favourable effect on your profit margin. Obviously, the authorities will eventually find out that something is wrong, so they will devise a new law or rule. Thus, the game of cat and mouse goes on.

The apple should just become an apple again and a euro a euro. But as T.S. Eliot said:Humankind cannot bear much reality.

To be perfectly clear, nobody finds it easy to get their head around this:

 

We, the government, businesses and the financial world, have created a mechanism based on a trick of creative accounting. Our current political and economic system is in reality one huge accounting scandal. We cling like religious fundamentalists to eternal book (paper) profit, thereby losing sight of daily reality and our responsibilities. From a political perspective, this is a social/liberal delusion, in which the socialists want to use this paper profit for the benefit of society, and the liberals to reward individual initiative. Surprisingly, both suffer from the same malady, that is, their faith in this non-existent paper profit.

Source: The political-economic Decoy, 2004

 

Nowadays, we all depend on bureaucratic reward. In 2009, Jacques Attali described a G20 meeting in London as: a meeting of alcoholics in a bar. Let me be clear, we are all addicted to our dose of bureaucratic reward, our purchasing power, bringing in more than we actually contribute. Is it possible to return the economic system to some form of natural balance? Without actually questioning the economic dogmas of growth and profit, this seems impossible to me. But what is the real problem in these proceedings?

What has gone wrong, theoretically and hence practically speaking, in the course of time?

 

Great thinkers all recognised the dangers of concentrating power in a relatively small group of people. From different angles and in different contexts, the “big three” have all given their vision of this: Montesquieu (1689 – 1755,) Adam Smith (1723 –1790) and Karl Marx (1818 – 1883.)

 

Montesquieu could perhaps be considered the founder of the political separation of powers. Adam Smith knew that an economy profits from individual initiative and maximum participation, with the result that economic communication remains in balance because of mutual competition. Adam Smith can, in a sense, be seen as wanting to keep the economic concentration of power under control by means of a kind of “economic separation of powers”. Mergers and the endless buying up of companies is at odds with this. How can you sum up Karl Marx’s ideas? Maybe he can be regarded as the scientific founder of “social equality”. The isolated role of money in society has alienated man from this social equality so that he lives in a kind of permanent and anxious isolated exile.

 

For me, these basic precepts do not contradict each other. Rather, they are complementary and integral. It would seem as if we have taken the separation of powers too literally. In the sense of: we are responsible for this and now you are trying to cast doubt on our independent way of working. I don’t interfere in your business either, do I? What I am trying to say is that the separation of powers has taken on dogmatic/technocratic features, and, as a result, the comparative outsider no longer has access to the place that theoretically regards each human being as equal. It makes little difference whether this concerns politics, the economy or the judiciary. By delegating this, specialists/winners keep you at arm’s length because you are, basically, a danger to the “establishment”. Money reinforces the separation of powers, because if you have money today, you let that money communicate for you and you yourself remain inviolable. At the same time, money has reduced the dependence of others, which, in many cases, is extremely positive. The real political and economical trick is to strike a dynamic balance between these. If the market of politics, the law and economics are a meeting of equals with different responsibilities, then we must leave our ivory towers (the technocratic separation of powers) to safeguard what unites us, and we should all, on the basis of our own responsibilities, watch over and strengthen this meeting of “equals”. This can only come from the inside, awareness is not something that you can impose on others.

 

In my first letter to Prime Minister Balkenende (2 May 2006), I wrote the following in the appendix:

 

The economy is nothing other than a form of social communication and, therefore, the most important building block of democracy. A lasting reform will only be possible when we show the courage and the will to democratise the economy.
http://www.solution-simple.com/government.html

 

 

Part 6

12/06/2011

Application before the European Court of Human Rights (4)

 

Part One

Part two

Part three

 

IV. EXPOSÉ RELATIF AUX PRESCRIPTIONS DE L’ARTICLE 35 § 1 DE LA CONVENTION

STATEMENTCONCERNING ARTICLE 35 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

VERKLARING BETREFFENDE ARTIKEL 35 § 1 VAN HET VERDRAG

 

15

 

The dogmatism behind the assumption that money is in itself worth money in the form of interest and its conditioning of people, politics, economy and the judiciary contravenes the following articles: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14 and 17 as can be read in the appeal of 4 July 2007:

http://www.solution-simple.com/eng/appeal_4july2007.html

 

In this petition, I will limit myself to article 6 (right to a fair trial):

 

The search for balance is the essence of the legal system and a fair trial. How will the balance of power evolve in society if the basic message is to bring in more than you contribute, make a profit?

 

Money rules the world. But the power of money remains largely invisible. Few realise that we are living in a global casino in which almost 2 trillion dollars changes hands every day. No less than 98% of this is speculations, i.e. money not used to pay for goods or services. The negative consequences of this are all too familiar: poverty, environmental pollution and chronic lack of time.

 

From the back cover of The Future of Money by Bernard Lietaer, published in the Netherlands by De Boekerij BV Amsterdam.

 

What objective hold do politics, the legal system, economic science, and normal people have if growth and profit are the economic objectives? Is five per cent good or maybe twenty? It’s intangible. If the virtual part of the economy is in difficulty, we pump billions into the system to save it, at the expense of the whole. What we achieve by doing that is to save the belief in the system, whilst the rest remains as it was. The existing balance of power is stabilised. Stability is a matter of life and death for all societies but as a constitutional state, we are also obliged to look at the mutual hierarchy of power to see if people are essentially still “equal”. This is only possible if there is a common basis in which people are “equal” and onto which they can always fall back. Legally speaking, this is the constitution and human rights. Politically speaking, this is a bit more vague: winning elections, the general good? It should be the latter, but what constitutes the general good: economic growth and profit?

 

We have not made it easy for ourselves, but at the same time that’s the success of the system. Thanks to an arithmetic lever, we have managed to turn an apple into an apple plus X per cent. This X per cent is our reward for the effort we have put in. No one has ever been able to explain to me where exactly the added value of the X per cent is, except in the apple itself. The undersigned calls this our bureaucratic faith. This is hardly surprising as this belief works as a lever, a profit catalyst. First there was a plain or very special apple and if you sold it and your costs were lower than your income you had a profit…. on paper. Because in reality, all there was was the apple and whether this makes you a “profit” or a “loss” does nothing to change that. The result was a lot of hocus-pocus about that apple, and what good this has done us, you may well ask. The origin of this bureaucratic technique is found in the financial world, where money in itself is worth money in the form of interest. In actual fact, it’s something we believe or think is true. If we borrow money we have to pay it back and pay interest, which is why we had to come up with something that makes an apple not just simply an apple but an apple plus X per cent.

 

Fortunately, this can be done in a supply and demand market, where growth and profit are the motors of the economy. Profit is in fact nothing other than the difference in power between the supplier and the demander. A big difference in power gives you extra purchasing power. The West has far more purchasing power than African countries, for example. It doesn’t really make much difference if you have lots of debts, the point is to grow and win, because by doing so your purchasing power increases. Actually, this is an indicator of market dominance, although to uphold the faith, economists and political commentators will use other, more pleasant sounding words to describe it. This is not so much reproach as logic and, in certain respects, of all time.

If we look at the global consumption pyramid, we see that twenty per cent of the richest account for eighty-six per cent of total global consumption – you, and the undersigned, included (Source: UN population fund). The trend in the difference in purchasing power clearly emerges in calculations made by the footprint organisation, i.e. that if every citizen of the world were to have the same average consumption requirements as the Dutch have, we would need five extra worlds. We live beyond our means and that has to be paid for somehow. Evidently, today’s political and economic system has nothing built into it to maintain the balance, such as by using the earth’s own natural renewable production capacity.

 

Part 5

05/06/2011

Application before the European Court of Human Rights (3)

Part One

Part two

II. EXPOSÉ DES FAITS

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

WEERGAVE VAN DE FEITEN

 

14.

 

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:

 

Article 81

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.
http://www.solution-simple.com/eng/appeal_to_supreme_cour...

 

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.

 

 

 

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation en
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pin8fbdGV9Y

 

- 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.

The essence of what I have tried to put forward is that, as a result of mutual competition, the authorities have chosen to side with:

the winners

As a consequence, the authorities have lost any and all independence to talk and act on behalf of the people. The assumption that money is worth money in the form of interest has even prompted the government to designate the winner in advance:

the financial world,
the source of the unchecked bureaucracy.

As a result, the economy, democracy, the constitutional state, reason and integration have ultimately become subservient to the bureaucratic patterns that we ourselves have institutionalised. Over time, these patterns have created a
wall of apartheid in the human psyche, stronger than the Berlin wall. This wall has increasingly alienated us from our common basis, which, in legal terms, is our constitution and, in political terms, the public interest. It is through this that we have cut ourselves off from ‘the other’ and, hence, from ourselves.

When we have the courage to face up to this, that wall in our psyche will melt like snow in summer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A summary of the attempt at dialogue with the public authorities can be found at:

http://www.solution-simple.com/eng/consultation_with_government.html

 

Before the law”, the introduction to Orson Welles’ film of Kafka’s book The Trial, is also worthwhile viewing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqPeI7-eVgc&feature=related

 

 

Part Four

29/05/2011

Application before the European Court of Human Rights (2)

 Part one

Machine versus man


o
r

man versus machine

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Economic communication:

a choice between competition

(profit and loss) and peace (participating in democracy and the rule of law).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can I help it?”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lire la suite