Governments of all fifty States are ripping off WE THE PEOPLE!!!! : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

NEWS: * Does the 5 Trillion Dollar Federal Debt Really Exist? - Explanation of the CAFR - Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports Does the 5 trillion dollar federal debt really exist? What if the answer was no? What if the stock market was really controlled by composite government's institutional funds and the movement of the market - up, down, and sideways was predetermined as a result of a greater than 50% controlling interest in the market by government? Would the stock market ever really collapse by movement in the private sector? Probably not. What if you learned that there was now no need for any taxes to be collected by government because nearly everything was owned and controlled by government anyway? -- [the government is We The People in case you may have forgotten, or so it is suppose to be]. Would the fact that we have had no need for internal taxation for many years shock and bother you? If the assertions and evaluations by Walter J. Burien are correct regarding the fairly recent discovery (within the past 10 years) of Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports kept, produced and required by law to be kept by the nearly 54,000 government entities established and controlled by composite government than the surprising answers we present to those questions would have some serious merit.

Are governments keeping two sets of books? The following is taken from an email we received a few weeks ago from Al Adask of Anti-Shyster magazine.

[Begin email]

What follows is an amalgam of statements or implications raised by Mr. Burien on our telephone conversation, Tom Valentines radio interview, Mr. Buriens Email, and an article on Mr. Burien written by "Betsy Ross".

Mr. Burien reports first discovering the CAFR report in New Jersey in 1989, when he helped start a New Jersey tax protest group called "Hands Across New Jersey". While involved with that group, Mr. Burien read in the states Annual Budget that the total cost of all public services was $17 billion and the "net available" (the money on hand to pay all bills) was $24.6 billion. But then he asked the first question the IRS asks in any audit: "What are the gross receipts? He added the figures from various sources and came up with about $44 billion and began to wonder how the state could have $17 billion in costs, $24.6 billion in cash on hand, and $44 billion annual income? The numbers didnt add up, so he began to dig deeper.

Because his father had been Personnel Manager for the State Treasury for eight years, Mr. Burien understood how to get around in the various government departments. The state Director of the Budget was on vacation, so Mr. Burien called one of his lowest level assistants and said, "Im working on a report for Richard [the vacationing Budget Director] and I need all the figures on the autonomous agency accounts, interest accounts, investment accounts." The assistant said, "Ohh, you want the CAFR." This was the first time Burien had heard of CAFR but he said, "Yes" and the assistant mailed it to him.

The CAFR showed that New Jersey had liquid investment funds (cash) of $188 billion; common stocks worth $70 billion, $10 billion in loans due from public and private corporations, and $14 billion in insurance company equity participation. The little state of New Jersey, which admitted to less than $25 billion in annual income on its budget, reported $300 billion in cash, stocks, loans and equity participation on its CAFR. According to Mr. Burien, "On that day, I learned the definition of syndicated organized crime."

The scam worked something like this: Anything that was a cost or expense for public services (the traditional side of the Annual Service Budget, such as the Department of Transportation, health and welfare, etc.) was reported on the Budget where public taxes paid 100% of the bill for those services. That was $17 billion.

However, any governmental agency that was a profit center (the Port Authority for New Jersey, the New Jersey Turnpike, and investment account, etc.) that generated no-tax revenue was "restricted by statute from being reported in the Annual Budget. Why? Because the state legislature passed laws to prevent reporting the income from profit center on the Budget. Instead, income from these profit centers was disclosed only on the CAFR.

But that disclosure was not immediately apparent. For example, when Mr. Burien looked for New Jerseys 1989 "gross cash receipts" in the CAFR, he found the figure buried on page 174, under the "Waste Water Treatment Trust Fund". It showed the amount of the total cash receipts for 1989 from all 69 autonomous state agencies and departments was almost $87 billion. In other words, New Jersey was charging $87 billion to provide $17 billion in public services. New Jersey citizens were paying $5 for every $1 in services they received, and the state was pocketing the other $4 as "profit".

The CAFR also reported the state owned $32 billion in common stocks - but this figure was footnoted. The footnote revealed that the stocks were valued according to their original purchase price, not the current market value. In other words, if the state bought a stock in 1968 at $1.25 a share and its worth $3,000 a share now, they still report it on the CAFR as worth $1.25 a share. Burien determined that the true market value for the "$32 billion" in stocks reported on the New Jersey CAFR was actually about $70 billion.

But Mr. Burien goes further - he claims that the dual system of books is not unique to New Jersey, but ALSO COMMON AMONG ALL FIFTY STATES! Moreover, he claims the dual accounting system was not only used ten years ago, but is still being used today.

For example, "In 1987 Arizonas annual service budget reported $2.8 billion in revenues but the states 1987 CAFR reported total cash receipts of $3.1 billion, a mere $300 million difference."

"However, in 1997, Arizona reported an Annual Service Budget of $5.5 billion while the States CAFR (printed by the Auditor Generals Office) showed total gross cash receipts of $17 billion. thats a difference of over $11 billion. In just ten years, Arizona had caught up to New Jersey in that both states annual budgets reported less than one-third of the actual gross income seen in the states CAFRs.

"CAFR reports indicate that the composite totals for all government (Federal, state, county and city) ownership of publicly traded stocks exceeds $32 TRILLION (53% of the total ownership of all listed stocks), $8 TRILLION in insurance company equity (should we be surprised by high priced mandatory auto insurance or unaffordable health care?) and $5 TRILLION in Bond Surety Escrow Accounts for future liability of existing or potential debt.

Governments use Bond Surety Escrow Accounts to evade that pesky little rule that government should not operate at a "profit". That is, government should not impose more taxes than it actually uses to run the government. By designating tax revenue that exceeds operating costs as "Bond Surety Escrow" for future liability, government avoids calling excess revenue a "profit" and is thereby enabled to continue to enrich itself at public expense.

To illustrate the potential for abusing "future liability payments", consider the New Jersey plan in the 1950s to build the New Jersey State Turnpike and Garden State Parkway Authorities. The state asked voters to approve a $7.5 billion bond to construct the turnpikes. The state explained that these turnpikes would be operated as toll roads by the bondholders until the $7.5 billion bond was paid off - but the bondholders could not operate the toll roads at a profit. Once the bonds were repaid, the turnpikes would revert back into the states Annual Budget as a normal cost/revenue item. The public voted Yes.

Over the following years, the state sometimes alleged that the toll revenue from operating those turnpikes failed to cover their operating expenses, and so additional bonds were passed to fund the turnpikes. As a result, in 1990, the total bond liability still owed for the turnpike had grown to $14.5 billion. But guess how much was in the Bond Surety Escrow Accounts? $38 Billion! Enough to repay the original $7.5 billion bonds almost four times!

How could that happen? Say the toll road made a $400 million profit for the year and the scheduled payment on the $7.5 billion bond was $100 million. The state made the $100 million payment but kept the extra $300 million in a Bond Surety Escrow Account for future liability payments. Although they kept the $300 million, they did not declare it as an asset but wrote it off as a line item payment. In other years, even though they made a profit, theyd allege that they lost money and therefore floated more billions in bonds. (Guess who pays?)

The bottom line is that New Jersey is collecting hundreds of billions of virtually unreported dollars from all the autonomous agencies. The motivating factor is not public welfare, but control of those billions.

Mr. Burien not only alleges that the dual accounting system exemplified by CAFR is not only used by all fifty states, but also by all counties, cities and the Federal Government itself. If Mr. Buriens allegations are correct, they comprise the most damning indictment of big government yet seen. In sum, Mr. Burien implies that our government is in fact a criminal enterprise bent on oppressing Americans by extorting several times as much tax revenue as it spends on public services and using the majority of those extorted revenues to enrich, empower and enlarge government at public expense.

According to Mr. Burien, although the public is absolutely ignorant concerning CAFR, the primary cause for that ignorance is not the politicians but the mainstream media. When Mr. Burien first discovered the CAFR reports in New Jersey in 1989, he went on radio 101.5 FM in a live 45 minute interview. Two days later, that radio station was threatened with losing its license and was almost shut down. CAFR had become another example of - "third rail journalism" - any reporter or media outlet that touched the issue would be silenced or driven from journalism. As a result, theres been a total mainstream media blackout on disclosing CAFR reports.

Later, Burien learned that the New Jersey official in charge of discrediting his CAFR discoveries was a former reporter whod been appointed Assistant State Treasurer - even though he had no former financial background. Burien investigated his background and learned that as a reporter he made $35,000 a year. But as Assistant State Treasurer he made $65,000 a year - plus a Carte Blanche expense account of $125,000. !????????

Burien claims this was not an aberration: "I knew there was a state data search department which tied all agencies and departments together. I called that department and asked for a data search on all key level directorships and supervisory positions for all budgetary or autonomous agencies, and they came up with some 3,500 names from several administrations. Almost 1800 of these Directors were former editors or reporters! It is a virtual certainty that many of these appointments were payoffs for the journalists previous "cooperation" in spinning or silencing stories to suit government.

If you conduct a comparable search in other states, you may find a similar symbiotic relationship between government, editors, and reporters. If so, the medias "liberal, pro-government bias" may run much deeper than anyone has imagined, and the military-industrial complex" described by President Eisenhower in the 1950s may have been replaced by a "media-bureaucracy-banker complex" in the 1990s.

Therefore, Mr. Burien recommends that once you analyze your states Budget and CAFR reports, you insist that your local news mainstream media (TV, papers, radio) raise the "Public Awareness" by reporting the difference between the composite "total of cash receipts from all agencies, departments, investments, etc." and the "actual total composite revenues held or controlled".

If your local media refuse to publicize your states CAFR, they may be cooperating with a criminal agreement which has effectively silenced public disclosure of the CAFR reports for over forty years. However, once Americans know how much money is out there, where its coming from and where its going - the governments game will be over.

Any media that refuses to make immediate mention of the CAFR report should be publicly and aggressively boycotted. Media exposure is the jugular vein of the evil and corruption.

Walter J. Burien, Jr. C. E. V. I. P. O. Box 11444 Prescott, Arizona 86304 E-mail:

[End email]

For the video: "The Biggest Game in Town" - A 101 understanding of the CAFR's - email for ordering details.


Would You Like to Get Your "Money" Backed by Gold Again! The Gold and Silver Reserve - " itself circulated electronically, the ultimate worldwide free market currency". Visit e-gold today to set up your FREE account. $ [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] $


INFORMATION: * Census 2000 - The Information that Americans were Really Required to Give. - Research and information provided by the Save-A-Patriot Fellowship

Note: By April of 2000 the federal government will have loosed upon the American people a flood of census forms and an army of census takers. The Census Bureau has embarked on an unprecedented propaganda campaign urging Americans to give up their personal information for the alleged benefit of their communities. The Census Bureau claims that we are all required to answer all questions put to us. (They wouldnt lie to us now, would they?) But what exactly is the authority for the census, and just what is a census anyway? Our federal Constitution authorizes the census for two purposes. Article I, ' 2, clause 3(1) and Amendment 14, ' 2(2) provide that representatives shall be apportioned among the states according to their respective numbers. Article I, ' 9, clause 4(3) provides that direct taxes are only to be laid in proportion to the census or enumeration. This is an exhaustive listing of all the Constitutional provisions that authorize the federal government to conduct the decentennial census.

As citizens, it is our obligation to cooperate in this enumeration process. But is it our obligation to provide answers to a form full of prying questions? This is an important point. In order to delve into this matter, it is important that we define our terminology. The crucial term here, of course, is census. Just what is a census, and what does it entail? Because the meanings of words tend to change with time, if we are to determine the legislative intent of these Constitutional provisions the best dictionary to consult would be one published close to the time the Constitution was adopted. (It is a fundamental legal principle that the intent of the law-maker is the intent and force of the law.) For this reason we turn to Noah Websters American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828 edition. It defines the term census thusly:

Census, n. In the United States of America, an enumeration of the inhabitants of all the States, taken by order of the Congress, to furnish the rule of apportioning the representation among the States, and the numbers of representatives to which each State is entitled in the Congress. (emphasis added)

You will notice that the above-referenced Constitutional provisions, consistent with the definition of the word census as defined at the time, authorized the federal government to count the number of people within the districts. To implement these provisions, Congress passed several statutes found in Title 13 of the United States Code (USC) which includes ' 5 (Questionnaires; number, form, and scope of inquiries); and ' 141 (Population and other census information), which state in relevant part:

' 5: The Secretary shall prepare questionnaires, and shall determine the inquiries, and the number, form, and subdivisions thereof, for the statistics, surveys, and censuses provided for in this title.


' 141(a): The Secretary shall, in the year 1980 and every 10 years thereafter, take a decentennial census of population known as the decennial census date, in such form and content as he may determine, including the use of sampling procedures and special surveys. In connection with any such census, the Secretary is authorized to obtain such other census information as necessary. (emphasis added)

The Secretary shall determine the inquiries ... for the statistics, surveys... and obtain other census information as necessary. Because the rule governing statutory construction requires that we do not construe a statute so strictly as to render it unconstitutional, this other census information is limited to how many people live in ones home.(4)

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Census Bureau gathers a wide variety of information on social and economic characteristics of the population, such as household composition, ethnicity, and income... (5) But gathering this information is beyond the legitimate scope of governmental authority, as it has been conferred by the Constitution.

Title 13 USC, ' 221 Refusal or neglect to answer questions; false answers is the penalty statute for citizens that neglect their duty to be enumerated and states in relevant part:

' 221.(a) Whoever, being over eighteen years of age, refuses or willfully neglects ... to answer, or to the best of his knowledge, any of the questions on any schedule submitted to him in connection with any census or survey provided for by subchapters I, II, IV, and V of chapter 5 of this title, applying to himself or to the family to which he belongs or is related ... shall be fined not more than $100.

Again, applying the rule of statutory construction, if this statute is to be construed in a way to render it constitutional, then any of the questions that ' 221 (a) refers to are only those that are necessary to enumerate you. This does not include a wide variety of information. This is the law. The Bill of Rights, Amendment X, Reserved Power to States reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (emphasis added)

This important Amendment should be read, understood, and memorized by all Americans. It was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or the people. (United States v. Sprague, U.S.N.J.1931282 U.S. 716; as well as U.S. v. Thibault, C.C.A.N.Y.1931, 47 F.2d 169).

If Congress does not act pursuant to one of the enumerated powers given to it by the Constitution, it is infringing upon those powers which are reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment (U.S. v. Mussari, D.Ariz.1995, 894 F.Supp. 1360.)

Furthermore, any legislation beyond the limits of the powers delegated is an invasion of the rights reserved to the States or to the people, and is therefore null and void. (In re Pacific Ry.Commission, C.C.N.D.Cal.1887, 32 F. 241)

Having established that federal government may not legitimately expand their census inquires beyond enumerating the people in the districts, we shall now see how our courts have treated the issue. Note that the courts have never squarely addressed the matter of constitutional authority, at least not in any published case law that we have been able to find.

The courts have addressed many collateral issues, nonetheless. For instance, in Republic of Hawaii v. John D. Paris, a state appellate court determined that a census law did not authorize the Board to make a census of the wealth of the inhabitants. This was an 1897 decision.

In another case, U.S. v. Little, D.C.Del.1971, 321 F.Supp. 388, the court decided that ' 221 was not vague:

Provision of this section making it offense for person over 18 to refuse or willfully neglect to answer any question on any schedule submitted to him in connection with any census was not rendered unconstitutionally vague and indefinite because of the need to refer to other sections in order to determine census required.

Besides addressing the matter of the void for vagueness doctrine, the Little court also addressed the issue of 4th Amendment violations:

The fact that many personal questions may be asked in order to provide statistical reports on housing, labor, health, and welfare matters did not make census questions unconstitutional invasion of persons right to privacy.

This is probably true  but it is completely irrelevant.

Now the question arises: What will happen to me if a census taker knocks on my door, I ask him to show me his constitutional authority; and when he cant, I tell him how many people live in my home and close the door?

In the old ' 221, there was a provision for, in addition to 100 FRN fine, up to 60 days imprisonment; but that has been repealed. If they try to actually fine you  and we know of no one this has actually happened to  then you have the right to have the case heard in court. If you go to court, then you can argue the 10th Amendment and be on solid legal ground.

Some people may wonder why they should risk 100 FRNs and resist answering the questions.

First, we should resist the encroaching onslaught of socialism. Socialistic societies require their governments to keep detailed information on the populace; it is one of the earmarks of total government. In such a society, government micro-manages and macro-manages every facet of life and this cannot be done without voluminous amounts of private information. Socialist governments, in fulfilling their purpose of wealth redistribution (i.e., plunder), need to determine who to discriminate against and who to favor, hence the need for such information-gathering.

Second, we have a responsibility for the legacy of freedom that we leave our descendants; we are the custodians of their liberty.

Of course, Americans tend to be highly independent thinkers, not lemmings. Many of us take offense at government efforts to socialize and globalize America, and we are willing to peacefully resist the encroachment of our liberties. Accordingly, we demand that our government act in accordance with the very Constitution that created it. If government does not act in compliance with the Constitution, then we have by definition fallen into a state of anarchy and tyranny.(6) The Constitution does not authorize such usurpation.

So, what are you going to do when you receive your form and/or the census taker knocks on your door? Your only legal responsibility is to be counted!

FOOTNOTES (1) Article I, ' 2, Cl. 3: Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

(2) 14th Am. ' 2: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

(3) Article I, ' 9, Cl. 4: No Capitation, or other direct Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.


(5) Gender was probably a legitimate inquiry by the census takers before womens suffrage took effect.

(6) ANARCHY, n. Want of government; a state of society when there is no law or supreme power or when the laws are not efficient, and individuals do what they please with impunity, political confusion. (American Dictionary of the English Language, by Noah Webster, 1828)

Wishing you a tax-free day, The Tax Freedom 101 Staff -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Accelerated Adult Home-Study Program Home-The Questions-Audio/Video Clips-Plunder Protection-Liberty Works Radio-Sign Me Up ! Do you have a web site that would benefit from Extreme traffic? Register on our FREE HitLynx page here.

Dear Netizen: Are you enjoying The Tax Freedom 101 Report? You are. Great! Then why don't you recommend this newsletter to a friend or two. They don't have to be a crazed liberty-lovin "extremist" like you and me - even raging communists enjoy reading our newsletter! The forward button is just a click away...

Do You Have a Constitutionally Oriented Service or Product? Consider advertising it in the next issue of the Tax Freedom 101 Report. We offer prime spot banner advertising and classified advertising. Visit our advertising information page for details:

This report and past issues have been posted at the TAXFREEDOM101 egroups on-line discussion forum. You can add or share additional information and comments with others, access documents referenced in the report and access other pertinent information at our forum. Click here to subscribe.

If you received this ezine in text format and would like to view it in HTML visit the archive site:!OpenView

To be added to the Tax Freedom 101 Report, reply to the original newsletter or with the words (ADD ME) in the subject line.

To be removed from the Tax Freedom 101 Report, reply to the original newsletter or with the words (REMOVE ME) in the subject line.

-- Barney Barker (, July 25, 2000


Hi Barney:

Good post.

On the next 1040 you file, write in big letters "F you, IRS." The IRS has a great sense of humor, and will get a chuckle from your comment.

More important: I need a good recipe for clam sauce (spagetti) using canned clams. Barney, please help me.

-- (r@nd.h), July 26, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ