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

02/04/2012

Requête devant le court des droits de l'homme (2)

 

 

  

adam smith,montesquieu,karl marx,synthèse,désintégrations,intégration,communication économique,machine contre l'homme,participation,démocratie,état de droit,george greenstein,jérémie,conscience,györgy konrad,andrew cohen,liberté,tribunal d'arhem,chambre fiscal,cour d'appel,cour de droitde l'homme,peter hoopman pour les pays bas,requête,1797111,apartheid,science économique,ségrégation,foi,réligion,s.a. dangeville c. france,requête 3667797,constitution,le monde financier,l'origine de la bureaucratie déraillé,bureaucratie incontrôlable,mur d'apartheid,jugement,institutionalisation,dogme économique,the future of money,bernard lietaer,casino à l'échelle mondiale,justice,plus valeu,valeur ajouté,levier comptable,le leurre politico-économique,profit de papier,t.s. eliot,séparation des pouvoirs

 « Tu m’as encore mis dans de beaux draps. »

The English version can be found here. 

 

II. EXPOSÉ DES FAITS

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

WEERGAVE VAN DE FEITEN

 

14.

 

Le soussigné a tenté de dénoncer juridiquement la différence de pouvoir entre l’univers financier et le reste de la société. Cette différence de pouvoir se manifeste sous la forme d’intérêts qui sont réclamés sur l’argent prêté, en plus du remboursement. Ceci rend impossible tout échange économique équilibré entre les parties et diffuse un signal hiérarchique selon lequel on doit gagner plus que la contribution que l’on a apportée. En cas d’application de manière chronique, ceci conduit à des concentrations de pouvoir verticales, au lieu de communications économiques horizontales fondées sur l’ « égalité » entre les personnes selon le droit constitutionnel. La hiérarchie sociale, qu’elle soit publique ou privée, se formera et se stabilisera verticalement à partir de ces différences de pouvoir. En Inde, on appelle ceci le système de castes, en Afrique du Sud l’apartheid, aux États-Unis la ségrégation, en Allemagne le fascisme, au sein de la religion ceci s’appelle la foi et au sein de l’économie nous nommons cela la science.

 

Le soussigné a tenté d’aborder cette question de manière informelle, dans une tentative de dialogue avec les pouvoirs publics néerlandais en 2006. Cette correspondance n’ayant abouti à rien, le soussigné a présenté une réclamation contre un avis d'imposition provisoire relatif à l’impôt sur les sociétés.

 

L’observation la plus intéressante de toute la procédure a été formulée par l’inspecteur du service des contributions, le 26 mars 2007 :

 

Le problème que vous abordez dépasse le cadre de cette réclamation.

 

Ceci a continué de planer au-dessus de toute la procédure et aucune des instances juridiques néerlandaises n’a eu le courage d’aborder le contenu de la problématique soulevée, éludant la question de manière juridico-technique afin de ne pas être contraintes de l’aborder sur son contenu.

 

 

On vie aujourd'hui dans une société qui ce désintègre, nous avons besoin une intégration (synthèse) des grand penseurs comme Adam Smith, Karl Marx et Montesquieu.

Pour lire le document tout entier;

Requete_Cour_Européenne_des_Droits_de_l_Homme__15_maart_2...

 

 

19/12/2010

La reponse sur "Pourquoi cette scène?"

 

 Pourquoi cette scène?   ;-)


Cette scène montre clairement, subtile et brute :


I. L'abus de pouvoir/hiérarchie par diviser et contrôle.

(le pouvoir de prendre plus = profiter)

II. L'absence d'égalité/intégration (et en conséquence absence de la justice, qui collabo avec "le pouvoir")

III. Circle vicieux entre abus de pouvoir et colère.

IV. Communication indirect par domminantion et soumission (seule arme de la soumise: le chantage et/ou la revolte, mais dans les deux situation il n'y a pas de communication égale)

Conclusion: c'est la confusion et la peur qui règnent!




C'est la méchanisme pyschologiquement de l'abus de pouvoir:

Le pouvoir donne le message, bat (concurrencier) entre vous et (peut être) on va récompensé le vainquer en disant tu est en vie qu'est que tu veut de plus, ou  telle somme d'argent ou la "liberté" etc. etc. L'adversaire de spartacus est en train de gagner mais il a conscience de cette sale jeu que le pouvoir fait lui jouer. Il sait qui sont les soi disant faux dans cette histoire: le spectateurs sur la tribune!

On vie une chose pareill aujourd'hui! Comment faire? Se revenger vers cette pouvoir!? Est ce que c'est vraiment solution ou c'est juste une reponse par notre propre impuissance commun par le dominant et le dominé?

 

En conséquence dans cette "équilibre" entre dominant et dominé, il n'y a plus de la communication sincère et un montage de la colère/frustration chez toutes les couches hiérarchiques et l'illusion de pouvoir chez le vainquer. (En réalité il a peur de perdre son pouvoir!!!)

Il n'y a pas d'intégration (sincérité) entre les couches de hiérarchie de la société.

Un des nous plus grande challenges aujourd'hui va être, la transformation de cette colère et frustration en quelque chose de constructive pour notre société. Malheureusement la priorité du pouvoir aujourd'hui c'est tenir la couvercle de cette boite de pandore à tout prix.

Nous avons besoin de trouver le courage de voir cette réalité en face et de libérez petit à petit cette frustration stocker en transformer cette énergie destructive en quelque chose de constructive pour la société.

 

 

Et comme 'bon français' on attend la prochaine révolution sans vraiment changer quelque chose. On a besoin façon parler de tout le monde pour qu'on change la société de l'intérieur à chaque niveau. Aujourd'hui on est surtout prit par la peur de perdre nos acquis qui nous isolons dans notre petit bulles sans lien vers notre conscience propre et sans lien vers l'autre.  

11/10/2010

Appeal to Supreme Court (english)

Supreme Court of the Netherlands (tax division)
PO Box 20303
2500 EH The Hague
The Netherlands

5 September 2009

Appeal to the Supreme Court in case number: BK/M3-08/00242

Legal action by: De Hutte Holding BV c/o Montjaux France / Dutch Tax and Customs Administration Office, division East, Doetinchem office in Almelo.

assessment/decision no.: 64.57.502.V.70.0112

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

On 28 July of this year the Court of Appeal in Arnhem gave its decision on appeal in case BK/M3-08/00242

The Court of Appeal expressed the following:

4. Assessment of the dispute

 

  1. The stakeholder declared in court that their point of view can be presented as follows. The current practice of paying remuneration (in the form of interest) when capital is provided has no actual economic basis, given that money in itself has no value. This leads to a disruption of the balance of power or trade in favour of those who have capital at their disposal. The demand for or payment of remuneration (interest) for the provision of capital should, for this reason, not be permitted and, according to the stakeholder, it is not permitted. In this case, they refer to international treaties, particularly the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereafter referred to as ECHR). Now that it is not permitted to remunerate the provision of capital, the stakeholder holds the view that, it is a fortiori prohibited to consider interest a taxable profit and to tax it as such. What is not being disputed is that, if charging interest is not prohibited, the inspector has rightfully considered the interest by the stakeholder to be part of such profit
  2. The court expressly sets aside the question of whether a ban on charging interest is advisable, as the stakeholder suggests. The court only finds that interest is charged in business transactions relating to capital provisions and that this does not conflict with any national or international legal rule. In relation to ECHR, the court infers this from the fact that the European Court of Human Rights also imposes the obligation on parties to pay interest on payments imposed by the European Court in case these are made after the expiry of the term of payment set by the Court (see for example, ECHR 16 April 2002, S.A. Dangeville v. France, Application no. 36677/97, in which the following was decided. “(b) that from expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate of 4.26% per annum.”

4.3       The appeal miscarries.

I1cannot argue that it is currently prohibited for a tax inspector to collect taxes deriving from interest. This type of income has become so normal and self-evident in our society that it cannot be argued that collecting taxes on interest income conflicts with tax laws. I have stated that requesting and paying interest and, consequently, tax legislation conflict with the spirit of the fundamental rights in the Dutch constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. That the court’s ruling made use of the fact that the European Court of Human Rights also demands payment of interest only illustrates the conditioned and self-evident nature of our society in relation to the assumption that money is worth money in the form of interest. However, the assumption presented for legal consideration that money is worth money is yet to be carefully weighed up in a legal context.

The assumption that money is worth money has led to such things as:

  1. A great deal of legislation conflicting with international treaties and fundamental rights in the Dutch constitution.
  2. A politico-economic and seemingly also legal lexical confusion because our economic communication has been split into a real and a virtual economy. This could be called economic schizophrenia.
  3. A centralised concentration of power referred to as ‘the financial world’ at the expense of the real economy, democracy and constitutional state.
  4. A bureaucratic delusion as a result of which we are not in a position to deal with the social challenges of the here and now.

 

In a letter to Prime Minister Balkenende2 dated 9 June 2006, I made the following appeal:

Is there a place in our State of Law, where where the chronical social injustice can appear for trial, withour being hanged on forehand by the jurdical and bureaucratic machinery?

It is not about the money,neither an ordinary battle between a company and the Tax and Customs administration, instead it is about the fundamental functioning of our economic communication and the foundations of our State of Law and democracy, wich today we can consider as maffian, kafkian, chronical injust and anti democratic. M. Balkenende, your government has without a doubt a number of arguments to let aside this problem. Pschycholoical I can fully understand that, but it will stay a painfull question we have to treat soner or later individual and as a whole. Today we all are cowards, believing in a juridical and bureaucratic lever, a political-economic bubble without roots in society at the cost of our environment, democracy, state of law and the weak in our society.

Legally speaking, it is not the workings of the Tax and Customs Administration office and the Tax inspector that are under discussion; they simply do what they have been instructed to do within the politico-economic context that we can nowadays regard as normal in Dutch society. No, what I have contended from the beginning in my correspondence with the Prime Minister, the Supreme Court, the Dutch House of Commons, the Tax inspector and in the legal action at the District Court and Court of Appeal is that the 5,000-year-old assumption that money is worth money in the form of interest be weighed up in a legal context. This issue came nowhere near to being evaluated at either the District Court or the Court of Appeal. The following observation by the President of the Court of Appeal illustrates this: “You do not think that we will be questioning the financial system here, do you?” This is a door that remained closed during the legal action, but deserves to be opened to be able to evaluate the issues raised in a truly legal manner.

However, are we not going to end up in a legal no man’s land by evaluating an assumption that is more than five thousand years old? Five thousand years ago the situation on earth was incomparable to today’s. With a world population approximating seven billion people, the challenges are incomparable to those of five thousand years ago. Do we really think that we can provide them with food, clothing, clean drinking water, housing, education and health care3 from the increasing economic growth/profit?
We do not need to be clairvoyant to see that sooner or later this growth will kill us or choke us to death. An individual’s progress towards adult life is based on growth, after which it is primarily a search for the right balance. A politico-economic system that is primarily based on growth and taking more than we invest indicates in fact that it is not willing to grow up. Do we have the individual, political, legal and commercial courage to question our own performance as part of the whole, in this case Dutch society, in order to try to redress the balance? Is the Netherlands much too small to do something like this? Should this be organised internationally and from above? Then we might as well wait until we are blue in the face, as absolutely nothing will change to create a healthy and just equilibrium. The only change we can make is within ourselves. Only then will the world around us start to move because we have become aware that we form an essential part of Dutch society. This is nothing more than the aims laid out in the fundamental rights in the Dutch constitution and those stated in the European Convention on Human Rights. What we appear to have forgotten along the way is that this is our duty and not the exclusive task of an institute or a far-removed system at work.

I have attempted to highlight the discrepancies between the aims of international human rights, Dutch fundamental rights and the very inconsiderate and blind execution of tax legislation, which is based on the assumption that money is worth money. This is not about finger-pointing, but about raising awareness of the challenges we are facing together

I hope that the Supreme Court will use its legal powers to ensure that the unjust imbalance surrounding the assumption that money is worth money in the form of interest is clear to Dutch legislators and deserves to be redressed.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Hoopman
De Hutte Holding BV
C/o Château de Roquetaillade
12490 MONTJAUX
France

1 I do not consider myself a plaintiff or stakeholder in the personal sense of the world, but in the sense that I am a member of society.

2 A copy of this letter was sent to the Dutch Supreme Court at that time.

3 Article 25 of the universal declaration of human rights (UN)

  1.  
    • Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

17/06/2010

Are we still living in a state of law?

 Version française déjà paru.

The richest 2% of adults in the world now own more than half of all household wealth according to a recently published pioneering study by the World Institute of Development and Economics Research of the United Nations University in Helsinki. (Autumn 2006)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Doetinchem Tax and Customs Administration De Hutte Holding BV
Attn. Tax Inspector c/o Château de Roquetaillade
PO Box 9024 12490 MONTJAUX
7000 HE  DOETINCHEM France

The Netherlands

 

 

11 February 2007

Cc: Dutch House of Commons



Re.: Notice of objection                             
Re. (assessment) number: 64.57.502.V.70.0112 dated 31 January 2007

Dear Tax Inspector,

I am writing to you to formally object to the 2007 provisional corporation tax assessment, number 64.57.502.V.70.0112.

De Hutte Holding BV refuses to pay tax on its interest income, given that the current monetary and financial system is based on the assumption that money is worth money. Bureaucratic profit from nothing. The assumption that money is worth money has led to today's bureaucracy being better protected by the legal system than democracy, the environment, human rights and the constitutional state itself.

It has reduced the economy to a two-dimensional world that is no longer capable of discerning social priorities. Money, profit, interest, tax and donations are money irrespective of where they come from. It has held politics, democracy, the business community and the individual captive/hostage and alienated from reality. Intentionally or unintentionally, it has seen unchecked bureaucracy become the key priority for government, justice and society, slowly but surely choking creativity, authenticity, sincerity, natural freedom and solidarity. It has turned citizens into worshippers and serfs of bureaucracy as a result of which security, sustainability, trust, well-being and an integrated economy have become empty concepts, trapped in a two-dimensional world of profit, growth, inflation, interest rates, debt, etc. This bureaucratisation represents humanity's flight from reality into a paper make-believe world, entangling us in a two-dimensional bureaucratic web, creating an ocean of powerlessness and indifference and a fertile breeding ground for crime, terrorism and war.

We have created a world in which neither the government nor the people are in control, but the unchecked bureaucratic corruption, without us wondering where this has come from: the assumption that money is worth money, interest. The question now is whether this is in the spirit of the law. Where does competition end and do crime, terrorism and war begin and what role do politics, the legal system and the individual play in this? Do we have any sense of responsibility for the world we live in or would we rather play hide-and-seek in a flat, two-dimensional world that is both soulless and lifeless?

Yours sincerely,

Peter Hoopman

De Hutte Holding BV

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PS Appendix I consists of copies and hard copies of earlier correspondence with Prime Minister J.P. Balkenende, the Supreme Court, the Dutch House of Commons and the Tax and Customs Administration
Appendix II contains a hypothetical alternative to the current politico-economic system called Back to reality



APPENDIX  I

(Relating to de Hutte Holding BV’s notice of objection, number 64.57.502.V.70.0112, to the Dutch Tax and Customs Administration, 11-2-2007)

  1. Letter to the Ministry of General Affairs dated 2 May 2006, Ending economic apartheid

  2. Reply from Prime Minister J.P. Balkenende dated 22 May 2006

  3. Letter to the Ministry of General Affairs dated 9 June 2006 Refusal to collaborate further on the fundamental injustice within the (current) Dutch and European constitutional state, the chronic bureaucratic corruption

  4. Reply from Prime Minister J.P. Balkenende dated 5 July 2006

  1. Letter to the Dutch House of Commons dated 9 June 2006, Injustice of the current politico-economic system

  2. Reply from the Dutch House of Commons’ standing committee for Economic Affairs dated 6 September 2006.

  1. Letter to Tax and Customs Administration dated 11 June 2006, refusal to pay tax on interest income of de Hutte Holding BV, originating from EURL Petit Château Roquetaillade – Aveyron.

  2. No reply from Tax and Customs Administration

  1. Letter to the Supreme Court dated 11 June 2006 Injustice of the current politico-economic system

  2. Reply from the Supreme Court dated 12 July 2006

  3. Letter to the Supreme Court dated 18 July 2006, Who controls compliance with the constitution?

  4. Reply from the Supreme Court dated 17 August 2006

  5. Letter to the Supreme Court dated 13 September 2006, The difference between a legal system and a concrete question to you

  6. Reply from the Supreme Court dated 2 November 2006

 

  1. Letter to Prime Minister J.P. Balkenende dated 6 November 2006

  2. Letter to Tax and Customs Administration dated 6 November 2006, Writ of execution

  3. Reply from Prime Minister J.P. Balkenende dated 23 November 2006

  4. No reply from Tax and Customs Administration

 

The richest 2% of adults in the world now own more than half of all household wealth according to a recently published pioneering study by the World Institute of Development and Economics Research of the United Nations University in Helsinki. (Autumn 2006)

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX II

(Relating to de Hutte Holding BV’s notice of objection, number 64.57.502.V.70.0112, to the Dutch Tax and Customs Administration, 11-2-2007)

Back to reality

and the search for a politico-economic simplicity based on democratic principles

This notice of objection serves little purpose, however true or untrue it may be, if it does not propose some kind of alternative. Questioning interest in the Netherlands and Europe is comparable to a non-believer in the Middle Ages telling the Pope that God has been dead for years. It is, therefore, important for this notice of objection to offer insight into a possible alternative.

What is (will be) the new political and economic priority? What priorities does everyone share?

  1. Clean air

  2. Clean drinking water

  3. Healthy and, if possible, tasty food

  4. Shelter inner ring, seven basic priorities

  5. Education (that underpin safety, freedom and solidarity)

  6. Health care

  7. Nature and infrastructure

       and a functional bureaucracy that serves these seven basic priorities

These seven priorities must form the basis for our political, economic and legal thinking and actions. They apply to individuals, families, municipalities, regions, countries, continents and the planet we live on. Medium- and small-sized businesses must fulfil key responsibilities. When these have been practically implemented, there is additional room for:

  1. The art of self-realisation through honesty of mind and integrity of sprit

  2. Science

  3. Art of living the outer ring, the self-realisation process

  4. Research and development

  5. Renunciation and tolerance

 

When we replace the current economic priority of (bureaucratic) profit that facilitates the payment of interest and taxes with the above-mentioned seven practical basic priorities, which can repair trust, integration and participation, we will have formed a healthy basis for the self-realisation process, which is the most essential expression of individuality as part of life. Not egocentric, but living completely as part of the world and not at its expense. The above-mentioned idea is an attempt to improve the harmonisation of individual interests and public interests, as a result of which individual interests will gradually merge into the so-called public interests. That can only happen when we become conscious of the place we have in this world. This is different for everyone, which is what makes everyone’s life unique and meaningful.

From this perspective, the economy is nothing more than consciousness-raising, fleshing out our inner well-being for the benefit of society. This will take us from an economic science based on "scarcity" to one based on individual and societal well-being.