I did a google search, Estonia law does not allow for pierecing the corporate veil although it does allow plantiffs to collect strict intentional damages from stockholders and board of directors beyond the value of the stock and company.--- In [email protected], "terry12622000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't think it is Estonia but it might be but it is one of the ex > soviet controled nations the government gives a lot more limited > liablity protection to corporations registered in that country. They > don't even allow Pierecing the corporate veil which is a English/ > American common law standard so that parties connected to a > corporation can not use the corporation to commit un just acts.--- > In [email protected], "terry12622000" <cottondrop@> > wrote: > > > > A corporation is a business or non profit organaztion that > registers > > with a state governments for the purposes of incorporating, > > continuing the organaztion beyond the life of its founding > > stockholders, other type owners or members, one of the main > > advantages of a corporation which may be also shared by registered > > limited liablity companies and registered limited liablity > > partnerships is limited liablity spelled out in state government > > corporate laws and Anglo/ American common law, third party liablity > > can be a bonus but, natural law, common law and the 7th amendment > in > > the bill of rights to the US consitution forbids using corporate > > status to escape justice. The 7th amendment says In suits at common > > law where the value of the controversy shall exceed 20 dollars, the > > right of trial by jury shall be perserved, and no fact tried by a > > jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United > > States, than according to common law. Some states also have similar > > clauses in their state constitution usually in the declaration of > > rights section. Thus a state government can not grant third party > > limited liablity outright but it can insure the corporation or > Limted > > liablity company or limited liablity partnership. Nor should the > > state demand any waiver against suing for third party liablity to > > state residence in exchance for recieving benifits that comes from > > state incorporation fees but private insuers should be allowed to > ask > > for waivers in exchanging compensation for a waiver not to > > sue. > > I would perfer it be a state tax or fee ( I would also perfer > that > > the fee not be collected on at least the first 20 million a year in > > revenue) and the federal government take its cut from each state > > according to the population size of that state but the current 16th > > amendment probably only applys to corporations and other privildges > > thus an indirect tax not to individuals which would be a direct tax > > which the constitution including the 16th amendment does not allow > > except such as my stated perference of based on population size. > No > > popularity should not be the base for the course of action alone > and > > sure does not justify stealing or extortion but a 80% to 95% > > popularity of a revenue source is much more likely to pass than say > a > > national sales tax or a flat rate tax plus when it is actually a > user > > fee by choice it is not extortion, clearly if a business or non > > profit is forced to incorprate by the state or federal government > > that is exortion, if a corporation has a monoply that is also > > extortion on the buyer but the answer to that is to end forced > > incorporation and end the state backed monoply, in simlar fashion > the > > federal government should not necessarily stop operating a postal > > service but they should end the monoply, I think as long as the > state > > government does incorpration services the residence of the state > > should be compensated either through direct money and or through > > services, one big compensation would be to end all taxes on > > individuals and non corporations, they can end taxes and fees on > > corportions as far as I'm concerned but i'm calling for ending all > > taxes on individuals and non corprations first not off corporations > > or dividend, interest or capital gains from corporations first, > > unless a business is forced to be a corporation by the government > > then it is ok to untax them first. Its best that all taxes be > ended > > at the same time but if someone is exempt from taxes first good for > > them they don't have to share my pain as long as they did not help > > cause the pain.--- In [email protected], Urmas Järve > > <urmasj@> wrote: > > > > > > What exacly is a corporation and what is a small business? > > > > > > Also this kind of tax would only be a tax on the minority just > like > > the first proposed income tax what was ruled unconstitutional. > > > > > > What would be the "safeguards" of that tax being in place at that > > level? The second time income tax was proposed in US it was 2% and > > the proponents made fun of their counter parts who argued it could > > raise to 20% or more. That argument was considered absurd and look > at > > where we are now. > > > > > > Also does popular tax mean it is the right course of action? Does > > popular justify stealing? > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > Urmas > > > > > > On 07/01/2006 19:58, terry12622000 wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "terry12622000" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Polls show that only 5% say corporations pay to many > > taxes, so > > > > ending > > > > > the tax on individuals and non corporations ( which are > > mostly > > > > small > > > > > busineses) would i'm sure be vastly popular. It's > > basically the > > > > > political wonks who can't see it.--- In > > > > > [email protected], "terry12622000" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually a corporate tax would not be a tax in > most > > cases it > > > > would > > > > > be > > > > > > a user fee for the service of incorporating, it > > would be a tax > > > > when > > > > > a > > > > > > group was forced to incorporate or when > individuals > > and groups > > > > are > > > > > > forced to deal with corporations. Still ending all > > direct taxes > > > > on > > > > > > individuals and noncorporate and non limited > > liablity businesses > > > > > and > > > > > > nonprofits would put the political class > > establishment to the > > > > test > > > > > ( > > > > > > can it create enough value to sustain itself) > while > > freeing up > > > > > > billions, possibly into trillions of dollars for > > people to > > > > > > participate in alternative markets and mutual > aid.-- > > - In > > > > > > [email protected], "John Stroebel" > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought of you all as I was readying this > > post for a few > > > > other > > > > > > groups. > > > > > > > I thought of the reaction I got over the > > federal gov't paying > > > > an > > > > > > agreed > > > > > > > sum (adding up to a pittance) to the Ute > people > > for a contract > > > > > > (treaty) > > > > > > > signed in the 20's. Man. Some folks really > got > > them panties in > > > > a > > > > > > twist > > > > > > > over having to be 'indebted' for THAT deal! ;- > ) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, I saw THIS little charm....so why is it > > that, I wondered, > > > > > that > > > > > > > these Libertarians aren't cryin' a river over > > an estimated 500 > > > > > > BILLION > > > > > > > DOLLARS cost for these lil' occupations the > > government is > > > > > carrying > > > > > > out > > > > > > > in our name? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ute easier pickins???? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ahemmm....the post. ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > THREE LIL' LIES WE ALL SWALLOWED > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hmmm...while I am still wondering, what IS > this > > course we are > > > > > > staying??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The estimated costs for this useless, > needless, > > obscene war of > > > > > > > aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan by > > 2007...500 Billion. Wanna > > > > > see > > > > > > it > > > > > > > in digits? $500,000,000,000. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But I digress....this is an excellent > article > > about three > > > > > wonderful > > > > > > > myths we Americans have fallen for....WMD, > > Zarqawi and Iraqi > > > > > > > sovereignty. enjoy! ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (did I say myths? Why of course I meant bald > > faced lies. Bush's > > > > > > pants on > > > > > > > fire.) > > > > > > > Cost of wars in Afghanistan & Iraq 2 top > > $500 BILLION in 2007 > > > > > > Three > > > > > > > Iraq Myths That Won't Quit > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By Scott Ritter > > > > > > > > > http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13764.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > 06/26/06 > > > > > > > "AlterNet" -- -- It is hard sometimes to know > > what is real and > > > > > what > > > > > > is > > > > > > > fiction when it comes to the news out of > Iraq. > > America is in > > > > > > its "silly > > > > > > > season," the summer months leading up to a > > national election, > > > > and > > > > > > the > > > > > > > media is going full speed ahead in exploiting > > its primacy in > > > > the > > > > > > news > > > > > > > arena by substituting responsible reporting > > with headline- > > > > grabbing > > > > > > > entertainment. So, as America closes in on > > the end of June > > > > and > > > > > > the > > > > > > > celebration of the 230th year of our nation's > > birth, I thought > > > > I > > > > > > would > > > > > > > pen a short primer on three myths on Iraq to > > keep an eye out > > > > for > > > > > as > > > > > > we > > > > > > > "debate" the various issues pertaining to our > > third year of war > > > > > in > > > > > > that > > > > > > > country. The myth of sovereignty Imagine > the > > president of the > > > > > > United > > > > > > > States flying to Russia, China, England, > France > > or just about > > > > any > > > > > > other > > > > > > > nation on the planet, landing at an airport > on > > supposedly > > > > > sovereign > > > > > > > territory, being driven under heavy U.S. > > military protection > > > > to > > > > > > the > > > > > > > U.S. Embassy, and then with some five minutes > > notification, > > > > > > summoning > > > > > > > the highest elected official of that nation > to > > the U.S. Embassy > > > > > for > > > > > > a > > > > > > > meeting. It would never happen, unless of > > course the nation in > > > > > > question > > > > > > > is Iraq, where Iraqi sovereignty continues to > > be hyped as a > > > > > reality > > > > > > when > > > > > > > in fact it is as fictitious as any fairy tale > > ever penned by the > > > > > > > Brothers Grimm. For all of the talk of a free > > Iraq, the fact is > > > > > Iraq > > > > > > > remains very much an occupied nation where > the > > United States > > > > (and > > > > > > its > > > > > > > ever decreasing "coalition of the willing") > > gets to call all > > > > the > > > > > > shots. > > > > > > > Iraqi military policy is made by the United > > States. Its borders > > > > > are > > > > > > > controlled by the United States. Its economy > is > > controlled > > > > > largely > > > > > > by > > > > > > > the United States. In fact, there simply > isn't > > a single major > > > > > > indicator > > > > > > > of actual sovereignty in Iraq today that can > be > > said to be free > > > > of > > > > > > > overwhelming American control. Iraqi > ministers > > continue to be > > > > > shot > > > > > > at by > > > > > > > coalition forces, and Iraqi police are > > powerless to investigate > > > > > > criminal > > > > > > > activities carried out by American troops (or > > their mercenary > > > > > > > counterparts, the so-called "Private Military > > Contractors"). > > > > The > > > > > > reality > > > > > > > of this myth is that the timeline for the > > departure of American > > > > > > troops > > > > > > > from Iraq is being debated (and decided) in > > Washington, D.C., > > > > not > > > > > > > Baghdad. Of course, as with everything in > Iraq, > > the final vote > > > > > will > > > > > > be > > > > > > > made by the people of Iraq. But these votes > > will be cast in > > > > > > bullets, not > > > > > > > ballots, and will bring with them not only > the > > departure of > > > > > American > > > > > > > troops from Iraq, but also the demise of any > > Iraqi government > > > > > > foolish > > > > > > > enough to align itself with a nation that > > violates > > > > international > > > > > > law by > > > > > > > planning and waging an illegal war of > > aggression, and continues > > > > to > > > > > > > conduct an increasingly brutal (and equally > > illegitimate) > > > > > > occupation. > > > > > > > The myth of Zarqawi I have said all along > that > > the poll figures > > > > > > showing > > > > > > > Americans to be overwhelmingly against the > war > > in Iraq were > > > > > > illusory. > > > > > > > Only 28 percent of Americans were against the > > war when we > > > > invaded > > > > > > Iraq. > > > > > > > The ranks have swelled to over 60 percent not > > because there has > > > > > > been an > > > > > > > awakening of social conscience and > > responsibility, but rather > > > > > > because > > > > > > > things aren't going well in Iraq, and there > is > > increasing angst > > > > > in > > > > > > the > > > > > > > American heartland because we seem to be > losing > > the war in > > > > Iraq, > > > > > > and no > > > > > > > one likes a loser. So when the word came that > > the notorious > > > > > > terrorist, > > > > > > > Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, was killed by American > > military action, > > > > the > > > > > > > president suddenly had a "good week," and > poll > > numbers adjusted > > > > > > slightly > > > > > > > in his favor. However, the facts cannot be > > re-written, even > > > > by > > > > > a > > > > > > > slavish American mainstream media. Zarqawi > was > > never anything > > > > > more > > > > > > than > > > > > > > a minor player in Iraq, a third-rate > Jordanian > > criminal whose > > > > > > exploits > > > > > > > were hyped up by a Bush administration > anxious > > to prove that the > > > > > > > insurgency that was getting the best of > America > > in Iraq was > > > > > > > foreign-grown and linked to the perpetrators > of > > the 9/11 terror > > > > > > attacks > > > > > > > nonetheless. The reality of just how wrong > such > > an assessment > > > > is > > > > > > (and > > > > > > > was) has been pounded home in blood. Since > > Zarqawi's death, the > > > > > > violence > > > > > > > has continued to spiral out of control in > Iraq, > > with Americans > > > > > > > continuing to die, Iraqis still being > > slaughtered, and Zarqawi > > > > > and > > > > > > his > > > > > > > organization, successor and all, still as > > irrelevant to reality > > > > > as > > > > > > ever. > > > > > > > The war against the American occupation in > Iraq > > is being fought > > > > > > > overwhelmingly by Iraqis. The insurgency is > > growing and becoming > > > > > > > stronger and more organized by the day. This, > > of course, is a > > > > > > reality > > > > > > > that the Bush administration cannot afford to > > have the American > > > > > > people > > > > > > > know about in an election year, as a > compliant > > media, having > > > > sold > > > > > > its > > > > > > > soul to the devil in hyping of the virtues of > > an invasion of > > > > Iraq > > > > > > back > > > > > > > in 2002-2003, continues to dance with the > party > > that brought > > > > them > > > > > by > > > > > > > supporting the Republican position, by and > > large, that the > > > > > conflict > > > > > > in > > > > > > > Iraq is a winnable one for America. Good > > ratings, more dead > > > > > > Americans > > > > > > > (and Iraqis, but who is counting?) and a war > > that will never > > > > end > > > > > > until > > > > > > > the United States finally slinks out, > defeated, > > its tail tucked > > > > > > firmly > > > > > > > between its legs. The myth of WMD > Regardless > > of what Sen. Rick > > > > > > > Santorum and the lunatic neoconservative > fringe > > want to think, > > > > no > > > > > > > weapons of mass destruction have been found > in > > Iraq. Citing a > > > > > > classified > > > > > > > Department of Defense report that claims some > > 500 artillery > > > > > shells > > > > > > have > > > > > > > been found in Iraq by U.S. forces since the > > invasion and > > > > > subsequent > > > > > > > occupation of Iraq in March 2003, Santorum > and > > his cronies in > > > > the > > > > > > > right-wing media have been spouting nonsense > > about how Bush got > > > > > it > > > > > > right > > > > > > > all along, that there were WMD in Iraq after > > all. He > > > > conveniently > > > > > > fails > > > > > > > to report that there is nothing "secret" > about > > this data, it > > > > has > > > > > all > > > > > > > been reported before (by the Bush > > administration, nonetheless), > > > > > and > > > > > > that > > > > > > > the shells in question constitute old > artillery > > munitions > > > > > > manufactured > > > > > > > well prior to 1991 (the year of the first > Gulf > > War, and a time > > > > > after > > > > > > > which the government of Saddam Hussein > stated -- > > correctly, it > > > > > > turned > > > > > > > out that no WMD were produced in Iraq). The > > degraded sarin > > > > > nerve > > > > > > agent > > > > > > > and mustard blister agent contained in the > > discovered munitions > > > > > had > > > > > > long > > > > > > > since lost their viability, and as such > > represented no threat > > > > > > > whatsoever. Furthermore, the haphazard way in > > which they were > > > > > > > "discovered" (lying about the ground, as > > opposed to carefully > > > > > stored > > > > > > > away) only reinforces the Iraqi government's > > past claims that > > > > > many > > > > > > > chemical munitions were scattered about the > > desert countryside > > > > in > > > > > > remote > > > > > > > areas following U.S. bombing attacks on the > > ammunition storage > > > > > > depots > > > > > > > during the first Gulf War. Having personally > > inspected scores > > > > of > > > > > > these > > > > > > > bombed-out depots, I can vouch for the > veracity > > of the past > > > > Iraqi > > > > > > > claims, as well as the absurdity of the > claims > > made today by > > > > > > Santorum > > > > > > > and others, who continue to hold personal > > political gain as > > > > being > > > > > > worth > > > > > > > more than the blood of over 2,500 dead > > Americans. These three > > > > > > myths -- > > > > > > > WMD, Zarqawi and Iraqi sovereignty -- are > what > > members of > > > > Congress > > > > > > > should be debating in their halls of power, > the > > American media > > > > > > should be > > > > > > > discussing either in print or across the > > airwaves, and that > > > > > > discussion > > > > > > > should constitute the foundation of a > movement > > towards > > > > > > accountability, > > > > > > > where the citizens of the United States > finally > > point an > > > > > accusatory > > > > > > > finger at those whom they elected to > represent > > them in higher > > > > > > office, > > > > > > > and who have failed in almost every regard > when > > it comes to > > > > Iraq. > > > > > > But > > > > > > > then again, silly me for thinking this way, > > believing that > > > > there > > > > > > was an > > > > > > > engaged constituency within America that > knows > > and understands > > > > the > > > > > > > Constitution of the United States and seeks > to > > live each day as > > > > a > > > > > > true > > > > > > > citizen empowered by the ideal and values set > > forth by that > > > > > > document. I > > > > > > > had overlooked the Fourth Myth -- that > American > > citizens are > > > > > > engaged in > > > > > > > our national debate. Scott Ritter served > as > > chief U.N. > > > > weapons > > > > > > > inspector in Iraq from 1991 until his > > resignation in 1998. He > > > > is > > > > > the > > > > > > > author of, most recently, " Iraq > > Confidential: The Untold > > > > Story > > > > > > of the > > > > > > > Intelligence Conspiracy to Undermine the U.N. > > and Overthrow > > > > Saddam > > > > > > > Hussein " > > > > > (Nation > > > > > > > Books, 2005 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > > removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > >
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/KlSolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
