Tuesday, 29 July 2014



In their desperation to keep a lid on Britain’s dirty secrets, the filth who run this septic isle are starting to make serious mistakes.
Take the recent case of the mysterious death of Peaches Geldof.
The powers-that-be acted in such haste when they disposed of her, that they stupidly forgot to let Kent Police in on the plan.
That’s why the plod spent weeks telling the truth about her death not being drugs related but have now had to backtrack and claim that she was indeed found with heroin paraphernalia.
Mossad rent-boys, Mi5, are now so petrified that social media sites are exposing VIP paedohile rings, they’re having to resort to even more deadly attacks on any high-profile names who dare to speak out.
It happened with Jill Dando, it’s happened again with Peaches Geldof.
But this time we’re better equipped to see through their lies and dirty tactics.
Did Peaches Geldof really die of a heroin overdose, or was she murdered, like many before her, because she had knowledge of the powerful VIP paedophile ring linked to the BBC, Government and Royalty?
Are the filthy British Establishment willing to stop at nothing to cover their sordid secrets?
She had already tweeted the name of the mothers who helped depraved singer Ian Watkins abuse babies.
Ian Watkins was once the boyfriend of Fearne Cotton.
Fearne Cotton’s second-cousin was BBC executive, Bill Cotton.
Did Peaches Geldof contact Fearne Cotton about what she knew?
Was her mother, Paula Yates, also murdered?
Most certainly, yes.
You see, her father, Hughie Green, was a BBC presenter for many years.
He must have known child-raping filth, Jimmy Savile.
Hughie Green was a great fan of Margaret Thatcher, who in turn was close chums with Savile.
There have been many strange and unexplained deaths of celebs linked to the BBC.
Michael Hutchence and Paula Yates died within 3 years of each other, in apparent drug-related suicides.
Sid Vicious and Nancy Spungen died in mysterious circumstances in New York.
Natasha Collins and Mark Speight both met an untimely and suspicious end.
Jill Dando was shot point-blank in the head on her doorstep, in 1999.
Were these deaths to silence witnesses who may have had knowledge of the BBC paedophile-ring and to warn others to keep their mouths shut?
By a strange coincidence, creepy coroner, Paul Knapman, was in charge of the inquests of Paula Yates, Natasha Collins and Mark Speight and many other high-profile deaths.
According to the Tap blog:
” On 22 November 1997, Hutchence was found dead in a hotel room in Sydney. Paula Yates wrote in her police statement that Michael Hutchence was “frightened and couldn’t stand a minute more without his baby”.
During their phone conversations on the morning of his suicide he had said, “I don’t know how I’ll live without Tiger”.
Yates also wrote that Bob Geldof had threatened them repeatedly with,
“Don’t forget, I am above the law“.
This was also the favourite saying of Jimmy Savile, whenever he was threatened with exposure.
Has Bob Geldof hoodwinked the British public, Savile-style, by pretending to be a charitable, caring, family-man?
By a strange coincidence, Bob Geldof owned the Planet 24 TV company along with gay-lord Waheed Alli and his partner Charlie Parsons.
Waheed Alli appears to have a strange hold over Parliament and is seen as a powerful behind-the scenes “fixer”, along with his pal Peter Mandelson.
Does Alli have anything to tell us about the VIP paedophile ring linked to Parliament?
At the time of the murder Jill Dando, the Crimestoppers helpline number conveniently stopped working, just when crucial evidence could have been offered.
The Crimestoppers organisation may well be a “front” organisation with sinister ulterior motives and is run by some very interesting names:
1) Nick Ross-
The former colleague of murdered presenter Jill Dando. He recently said he’d watch child-porn given half the chance. His wife Sarah Caplin, is a cousin of Esther Rantzen and a founding director of Childline. Suspicions have been raised that Childline is also a “gatekeeping” front organisation which is used to gather data on any child abuse reports that may involve VIPs.
2) Michael Ashcroft-
The controversial Tory donor who pays no tax and has non-dom status. He has been described as ruthless and “not a man to cross”. Made a Baron by the Queen.
3) Peter Imbert-
A former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police who was in charge from 1987-1993 and may have a lot of information about why child- abuse claims made between these dates were ignored. Made a Baron by the Queen.
4) Lord Waheed Alli-
The first openly gay peer in Parliament and a wealthy entrepreneur. Owns a business, Shine Entertainment, with Rupert Murdoch’s daughter Elisabeth. Is a close friend of Tony Blair. Made a Baron by the Queen.
5) Peter Clarke-
A former Metropolitan Royal protection officer in charge of guarding Princess Diana at the time of her death. Made a CBE by the Queen.
6) Sir Ronnie Flanagan-
A former Chief Inspector of Constabulary. Was previously in charge of policing in Northern Ireland and Iraq. May have a lot of information about why child-abuse rings have been covered up.
In March 2014, the Mail reported in the disturbing case of High-Court judge, Adrian Fulford, who was linked to the Paedophile Information Exchange Network.
According to Companies House, Fulford is the director of a film company called Mole Films LLP. They were responsible for the TV children’s series, Secrets of Benjamin Bear.
The company is linked to Ingeneous Media, which helps wealthy individuals avoid tax by investing money in film projects.
By a strange twist, Bob Geldof is himself a director at Ingeneous Media.
Bob Geldof is also incredibly close to Tony Blair, who in turn is incredibly close to Margaret Hodge, MP.
Margaret Hodge has this week apologised for her failings during the Islington children’s home abuse scandal, which allowed thousands of boys to be raped by VIP filth.
Is Margaret Hodge really sorry or just sorry she got caught?
Despite this scandal leading to the tragic death of Jason Swift, Hodge was never investigated and was instead, quite unbelievably, given the job of Children’s Minster, by Tony Blair. ( Lord Waheed Alli lives in Islington).
In a macabre twist of fate, her nephew Philip, was at the Warner resort in Praia de Luz when Madeleine McCann went missing.
Cliff Richard is also close to Tony Blair and may have lots to tell the police about child-abuse and the death of Jill Dando.
In a bizarre twist, Cliff also owns a home in Portugal, not far from where Madeleine McCann disappeared in 2007.
Gerry and Kate McCann were immediately given high-level support from the UK government and were assigned the help of Clarence Mitchell to act as their spokesperson.
Mitchell was one of the first reporters at the scene of Jill Dando’s murder in Fulham and no doubt works for the UK Intelligence Services.
The McCann family are themselves from Leicester and Gerry has many friends in high places in the area.
Labour peer, Greville Janner, who has worked closely with Waheed Ali, was accused of buggering a boy in care but instead of being arrested and jailed he was given a knighthood by Tony Blair.
In a macabre twist, we find that Janner nominated Bob Geldof for a Nobel Peace Prize in 1987, declaring:
” Bob Geldof is important not only for what he has done but as a symbol of that which we should all be doing”.
How very, very strange indeed.”
The clock is ticking on Britain’s dirty secrets.
It’s only a matter of time….

Sunday, 27 July 2014

Babylon Is Fallen by kate u/v kaia

Babylon Is Fallen by kate u/v kaia
1. NAME: The master key to the entire system's/CROWN CORPORATION'S game. The
NAME is the lynch pin to the entire legal/control construct. Without a LEGAL NAME,
which is your consent by agreeing to be said NAME, the system vampires cannot literally
feed on your life blood/creation source energy that is typically shown in the physical
materials we collect. It is only the CONSENT to be/use/have a LEGAL NAME/Mark of the
Beast that is required for your absolute spiritual contract/deal with the devil motif to be
in FULL FORCE AND EFFECT with you as a SLAVE and them as MASTER. For PROOF of
this, look and see how much of your life/existence involves a LEGAL NAME and you will
see the measure of control the system has over you.
2. REGISTER/REGISTRATION etc. : Any/all things registered are FULLY SURRENDERED
with consent to the CROWN CORPORATION with NO legal recourse until such things are
removed by exposing the INTENT by those who serve the CROWN CORPORATION to
commit fraud knowingly/unknowingly.
ex: A child that is REGISTERED is CROWN PROPERTY by ignorant consent where the truth
of REGISTERING was not brought forth which is the original INTENT by CROWN
CORPORATION SERVANT'S OWNERS to have people offer their children unknowingly into
slavery of soul, and thus, body. It's the soul they're really after, so keep that in mind.
3. MONEY, GOLD, SILVER, ASSETS, BITCOIN etc. are ALL illusions of value where YOU are
the true creator of all physical manifestations. Money, external value, has been the tool
as the third party interloper "middle man" that has made draining your power possible.
Money or the like only has value if one has been duped into thinking it does. This illusion
is the ultimate distraction and destroyer of creator souls, literally. ALL money is based on
the soul CONTRACT commonly known as a BIRTH CERTIFICATE.
yours is NOT your creation. Your "assumed NAME" was created by your parents/family
members/adoptive kin, NOT YOU. This is an ORIGINAL CREATION manifested by another
that is, in turn, REGISTERED thus rendering it CROWN CORPORATION PROPERTY as
previously stated. It is upon this deception that YOUR literal soul was and is enslaved andupon which ALL MONEY/DEBT is created. A DEBT BOND "value" was placed in the BIRTH
CERTIFICATE based on the assumed accruement of TAXES, LOANS, DEBTS a child is
expected to pay as long as they are part of this FRAUD upon humanity.
ex: If someone is expected to pay a certain amount of taxes etc. in their lifetime, the
BOND is given a DEBT "VALUE". A child born into a wealthy family will have a higher debt
bond value than someone who is of a lesser perceived "income bracket" rating. This is
slave trading at its finest which divides and conquers humanity in the
SERF/CASTE/HIERARCHY system that encompasses the planet.
5. COMMAND AND CONTROL: The courts and governments are the system slaves
within, bought and paid for where the true command and control aspects are the
POLICE/MILITARY as the front line dogs and fear contractors for those above the courts
and governments such as the BANKS/RELIGIONS and those that control them. The courts
and governments are merely the filler for this "sandwich" of deception and illusion.
Without the ability to CONTRACT via any/all NAMES at the front line level, the whole
system of control is destroyed, most importantly those at the very top of this spiritual
slavery pyramid. Without the NAME, all levels above are ultimately annihilated
and WASHINGTON D.C. They are the unholy trinity of the 3 in 1, 1 in 3 as illustrated
clearly in the Papal Crown: Religion, to control the beliefs, minds and spirituality of
humanity, the Courts and Banks to control the money/bonds and the world Police/
Military to quash rebellion and act as frontline contractors of soul extractions.
7. PRINCIPALITIES OF DARKNESS: This is the true nature of the game that the vastness of
humanity is blind to. Religions have been used to separate you from source by making
one believe "god" is external and use the "savior" program to reinforce this. Money is
the tool that is used to keep people in the physical-only realm by getting them to equate
an external "value" on everything where nothing would exist without the people and
their creativity. Physical death and harm is the tool used to clamp down your trueessence which is all creation itself. The tools employed are languages with the
corruption of pure frequency intent with multiple meanings of the same
sounds/frequencies, using WORDS and SPELLINGS (literally), thus dividing and
conquering us and redirecting our energy into THEIR creations and control. These
entities CANNOT create anything since they are soulless and thus, utterly powerless.
They know this and are absolutely terrified because this spells their doom, once and for
all. We are life with consciousness where these entities are consciousness without
life/soul/spirit. They are COMPLETELY AND SOLELY DEPENDENT on getting our CONSENT
or spiritual contract agreement and this is easily achieved through the NAME deception,
buying people off, ego comforts etc. Their whole house of cards/pyramid is BASED on
this FACT. We are the fuel for their system/vehicle. Without spiritual fuel, they are
The biggest program that we run into with the masses is the sheer disbelief of their own
power and who they truly are. A masterful job has been done to get humanity to this
level of spiritual weakness and complete ignorance. This was the intent of corrupting the
ancient truths, re-writing our past and presenting this in schools, churches and all levels
of ego academia. Repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it. It is far easier
selling a giant lie to the masses than selling us one by one. The media is the main tool of
thought direction and manipulation to reinforce the lies we were filled with as children
and up to our current state.
We have many soulless entities on this planet with the vast majority being placed in
positions of power and control, be it police, courts, media, churches, governments,
schools, military at ALL levels. Fear is their only tool and once one sees one's own true
immortal nature, one becomes untouchable; literally. The mass hypnosis of humanity is
deep and you will meet all levels of resistance from friends, family, co-workers etc. so
don't bother trying to wake those consenting to be dead. The facts to prove this are all
there for all to see so it is up to them to look, not you. Simply plant the seed and walk
away. They are the same as the ones in the allegory of Noah that came to the ark too
late; let them drown.
We are now at the culmination of destroying these entities once and for all and they arepulling out all the fear porn, illusion and desperation plugs and in that process, they're
sinking their own ship where I merely hand them a better plug-puller now. YOU and only
YOU can save yourself and no-one else so stop killing yourself trying. Let the dead bury
the dead and perhaps they'll "get it" on the next pass but they are NOT your concern.
Stay the course. The path home is the one of truth only and nothing else. Your
willingness to stand in truth is yours alone and to the degree that you stand will be the
same degree that you become untouchable spiritually and, as a result, physically. As
above, so below after all.
There is no "middle ground" here, you're either in or out of Babylon. You are either
master or slave, mortal or immortal. The soul, YOU, are infinite where the body is merely
a biological computer you operate. Your computer was infiltrated and corrupted
(reptilian brain stem/fused chromosomes) and separated from the heart source mind.
The soulless ones cannot experience compassion so don't expect them to. They are the
same as the Terminator droids in the movies, programmed to control and kill without
remorse and are easy to spot. They are everywhere including your own family, friends
etc. and all you have to do is "feel" your way through. Let your instincts and your heart
be your guide.
We are clearing this reality of these parasites exponentially now where universal law
reigns supreme where none shall or can trespass. They are masters of deception so do
not let your loving compassion be used against you, something that has been their most
powerful tools. The bio-borg entities are already lifeless and are dependent only on
being able to suck the life out of you but, like every vampire, they cannot enter your
reality without an invitation. Every use of the legal NAME is the only invitation they need
so best cut your ties and consent with that. Just get this concept and you have already
cut the puppet strings and your causal ability returns instantly in relation to your ability
to be responsible with that ultimate of powers.
To the "walking dead" (and you know what you are) , your time is over, your deceptions
are powerless and now moment by now moment, you are being erased from
consciousness for the invading parasites you are. We, of the living soul, are awake,
aware and reclaiming our reality where yours never existed. In short, yes, you are
doomed. Have a nice day! kate!!!

Saturday, 26 July 2014

Hockey tells Kiwis there is no economic crisis in Australia

Treasurer Joe Hockey has contradicted the messaging of the Federal Government after telling New Zealand it need not worry about its trading partnership with Australia as the economy is not in crisis.
Stephanie Anderson with AAP

26 Jul 2014 - 10:49 AM  UPDATED 3 HOURS AGO

Joe Hockey has told New Zealand that there is no crisis in the Australian economy, nor is it in trouble.
The treasurer also made no mention of the "budget emergency" he and his government referred to when justifying their unpopular budget to Australians.
Instead, Mr Hockey reassured Kiwis that their second biggest trading partner is benefiting from 23 years of consecutive economic growth.
"The Australian economy is not in trouble," he told New Zealand political current affairs show The Nation on Saturday.
Mr Hockey also denied drastic reforms to Australian healthcare, education and taxes were about ideological change.
He said his government's reforms were about continuing growth and stimulating other parts of the economy.
"There's no crisis at all in the Australian economy," the treasurer said.
"The fact is you need to move on the budget to fix it now, and you need to undertake structural reform to structure the economy in the years ahead."
Despite the changes, New Zealand has nothing to worry about in terms of its trading partnership with Australia, he said.
"We're like brothers and sisters. There might be a little competitive tension in the family, but there's no doubt in my mind that, you know, we're shared blood."
Hockey defends his 'tough decisions' budget
The Treasurer addressed the NSW Liberal Party state council general meeting this morning, where he also praised the leadership shown by Prime Minister Tony Abbott regarding the doomed Malaysia Airlines flight MH17.
“It’s in moments of adversity that you want strength and the strength displayed by the government reflects the inner strength of the Australian people,” he said.
“… If there's a lesson to be learnt over the past few days, you must always advocate for the values you hold. You never give up.”
Mr Hockey conceded that the first few months of government had been challenging, but defended the criticism the party has faced in the past nine months.
“No great achievements can be made without sacrifice,” he said.
Mr Hockey also defended the Abbott Government’s first federal budget, less than a week after revelations that he wanted far tougher cuts.
His authorised biography, released earlier this week, quoted sources as stating that the Treasurer’s controversial budget measures were not as strict as hoped.
Addressing the conference today, Mr Hockey said the economy would benefit from the cuts.
“We have made tough decisions in the budget, tough decisions that needed to be made,” he said.
“There is no easy path, but there is a dividend for the nation in doing it.”
The meeting coincides with the state’s Labor conference, where NSW Opposition Leader John Robertson is expected to speak.


Evelyn Robert de Rothschild

Evelyn Robert de Rothschild

"Evelyn de Rothschild is so rich that he builds bases on Mars" by Michael Prince 15:40.


Monday, 21 July 2014

Judge Bows To Kate Of Gaia (SUBTITLED) [09/01/2010]

Babylon Is Fallen By Kate Of Gaia (Spoken Version)




Outside The Box With Kate Of Gaia - Significance Of The Judge Bows Video [10/26/2013] 


Outside The Box With Kate Of Gaia - You Are Not The Legal Name [06/02/2014]








Babylon Is Fallen For Dummies



Sunday, 13 July 2014

Do People That Eat Margarine Really Know How It's Manufactured?

 Polyunsaturated margarine became a major part of the Western diet and had overtaken butter in popularity in the mid-20th century. Despite their best efforts, the margarine lobby has failed to convince most people that their synthetic concoctions are healthy. So what is not obvious to most of the people who consume it? The manufacturing process of course, which is very similar to the way plastic is produced.

If you are eating this crap-- poisonous margerine/FAKE BUTTER... It is one molecule away from PLASTIC.. No wonder the masses are having heart problems across the board.. Talked about this last summer.. They made margerine as a by-product to fatten up turkeys.. Even The turkies knew it was crap and would not eat.. But they were able to get the masses to eat this Sh-t.. Wake up folks. Do People That Eat Margarine Really Know How It's Manufactured?

Polyunsaturated margarine became a major part of the Western diet and had overtaken butter in popularity in the mid-20th century. Despite their best efforts, the margarine lobby has failed to convince most people that their synthetic concoctions are healthy. So what is not obvious to most of the people who consume it? The manufacturing process of course, which is very similar to the way plastic is produced.

ONR MOLECULE AWAY FROM PLASTIC. Throw it away..It is killing the masses..

Friday, 4 July 2014


New Zealand and Australia are facing what could escalate into their biggest constitutional crisis ever – an income tax revolt by ordinary taxpayers with the potential to bring down the current system of government.
Already two thousand New Zealanders and a similar number of Australians are understood to have joined the movement, and organisers are expecting thousands more as news of their activities spreads. Ian Wishart continues his special investigation.

The New Zealand tax inspector shook his head and blinked at the American grinning at him across the table. "What do you mean ‘it’s chickens!’?," he sputtered. "What the hell have chickens got to do with it?"
The American just smiled. "Well, you show me in the New Zealand Income Tax Act where it says that chickens are not a legal form of income. And seeing as my client didn’t earn any chickens last year, he doesn’t owe you any tax."
It’s an amusing diversion, and tax litigator Eddie Kahn (pron: Cain) has used it on a number of occasions with tax officials around the world. "It’s the same in the US," he explains later, "because they don’t legally define income there either. What’s really funny about it is the agent will look at you in a state of shock, saying ‘no, it’s not chickens’, and I say ‘well how do you know it’s not chickens: you didn’t define it.’ You see, when they say ‘no it’s not’, then they are obligated to show you what it actually is. And they can’t, because it isn’t defined."
It’s an approach the NZ and Australian tax offices have never seen before: a drag-em-out-knock-em-down fist-fight with revenue authorities forcing them to prove that ordinary citizens are covered by existing tax legislation.
While it might sound Alice in Wonderland or Don Quixote in nature, the process appears to be working. For Kahn, his Australasian research began two years ago when he was asked by a group of New Zealanders to help them research the tax laws. The group ensconced themselves in the comfortable surrounds of the Auckland University Law Library, and it wasn’t long before Kahn had his first taste of Kiwi bureaucracy.
"This librarian came over to us and asked if we were students. I said no and told her why we were there, and she said we’d have to leave. ‘Is this a publicly-funded research facility?’ I asked her, and she said it was. ‘Well, we’re the public. These people with me pay your wages, and we’re not leaving’."
What’s interesting is that while the American was standing up for them, many of the New Zealanders accompanying him had already begun packing up, automatically following the bureaucrat’s orders.
Naturally, the librarian went away to her supervisor who duly heard the same story, only this time Kahn added: "If you can show me your legal authority to exclude members of the public from this publicly-funded library, then we’ll leave." The library couldn’t, so the group spent several days there in the end.
What they were looking for was the "big bang" of income tax: when did it begin and what powers did the legislation give the government?
For the first few decades of European settlement in New Zealand, there was no income tax. Colonial governments survived, like other countries, on Customs duties on imports, as well as revenue from land sales to settlers.
But there was growing resentment among working classes to wealthy landowners coming in and buying up huge tracts of land for the equivalent of six dollars an acre, leaving smaller would-be farmers squabbling over the lower quality land that was left. What hurt the most was that while the land was cheap to buy, speculators had purchased such large quantities that they couldn’t afford to make the land productive, so the land went up for sale – but at prices that working people could not afford.
Sensing a political opportunity, former Governor George Grey stood for election as Premier in 1877 on a platform of introducing a land tax – not because the colonial government needed more money, but because he believed the land tax would encourage people holding the largest amounts of land to break up their properties and sell land to settlers at more reasonable prices.
"Large areas of land, held often by absentees, lay idle and impoverished for lack of capital," reported scholars J B Condliffe and W Airey in A Short History Of New Zealand, first published in 1925.
Grey’s land tax was duly introduced on undeveloped land, but property-owners found ingenious ways of fooling the government and avoiding the tax. It wasn’t until "one man, one vote" was introduced that the ordinary workers were able to elect a government more capable of legislating against the wealthy landowners.
In 1891, Premier John Ballance passed New Zealand’s first ever income tax, incorporated in the new Land and Income Tax of that year, and directed primarily at land values and corporate activity. The next revision of that Act appears to have been in 1908, and Eddie Kahn interprets the 1908 Act as implying the tax is "voluntary".
"Most Gracious Sovereign," the Act begins, "we, your most dutiful and loyal subjects, the House of Representatives in New Zealand in Parliament, assembled, towards raising the necessary supplies to defray Your Majesty’s public expenses, and making an addition to the public revenue, have freely and voluntarily resolved to give and grant unto Your Majesty the several duties hereinafter mentioned, and do therefore most humbly beseech Your Majesty that it may be enacted."
So at this point in time, 1908, New Zealand obviously has the rudiments of a land and income tax – freely and voluntarily gifted to King Edward VII. The rate of tax was one penny in the pound for land value, and sixpence in the pound for income – about three cents in the dollar.
By getting the citizens to voluntarily agree to provide three cents in every dollar to pay for government services, the government gained a foot in the door. Naturally, having been given an inch they took a mile and taxes in New Zealand rose as high as 98 cents in the dollar under the Muldoon government’s penal rates in years to follow.
Is it possible that New Zealanders can legally opt out of the tax system using the same freedoms available to American citizens? Kahn and New Zealander Andrew Carstensen believe they can. To that end, Carstensen wrote a letter under the Official Information Act to the Inland Revenue Department in early 1998, asking them to define what ‘income’ is. The disturbing result was written proof that the IRD doesn’t know exactly what income is, or isn’t willing to say.
"There is no definition of ‘income’ in the current Income Tax Act," the IRD’s national policy manager, Margaret Cotton, wrote back.
The reason appears to be that successive governments since 1908 have been anxious to cast their tax net as widely as possible, opting for deliberate ambiguity in defining key terms in the tax legislation.
"When you fill out your tax return, it tells you to list your income," explains Carstensen. "Well what’s income? They won’t tell you what income is, they let you decide what you think income is and when you’ve made that decision yourself, you dob yourself in, basically."
By filing a tax return, he says, you are voluntarily telling the IRD you accept their jurisdiction over you. There is no longer a technical question as to whether you are a taxpayer. All that remains to be determined is how much. You have entered a contract with the Government.
Every Act of Parliament carries an "interpretation" section that spells out the meanings of key words and terms in the Act. In the Revenue Acts, most definitions are prefaced by the word "means". However, certain crucial words are not given an exact meaning. Take the definition for "person":
"Person: Includes [our emphasis] a company and a local or public authority; and also includes an unincorporated body of persons."
At no point does the Income Tax Act specify that the term ‘Person" includes a "natural person", which is legal terminology for an actual living and breathing person. Nor does the Act even define "natural person" although it does define "natural gas". This is despite the fact that the phrase "natural person" is specifically referred to in the Income Tax Act under the definition "foreign entity".
It would have been extremely easy for the drafters of New Zealand’s tax law to simply say:
"Person: means a natural person, and also includes a company etc."
Why wasn’t it done that way? Why doesn’t the definition of "person" in the Income Tax Act specifically include "natural persons"? And does this mean that ordinary members of the public can legally stop paying tax on the grounds that the legislation is unclear and therefore void?
Curiously, and probably not coincidentally, nor do the tax codes of Canada or Australia use the word "means" to define a person: both countries use "includes". Neither do those countries define a "person" as specifically including a natural person.
An innocent oversight by one legal hack in the Crown Law Office in Wellington while drafting legislation could be explained as a simple mistake, but when three developed nations all have the same definitions for person, with no mention of human beings, one could start to wonder. Surely, argue tax researchers, if those governments had the power to compel all humans to pay tax on their income – in the publicly understood sense of the word – then they would have plainly outlined this in the statutes.
Indeed, it is a requirement in New Zealand at least that where a Government moves to alter an existing common law right, that such alterations must explicitly be contained in legislation. If the Government intended to remove a natural person’s right to contract out their labour for a sum of money, surely it would be explicitly spelt out in the Income Tax Act.
Contrast the vague definition of "person" with the very precise definition of "natural gas" in the New Zealand Income Tax Act:
"Natural gas: means the gaseous mixtures of petroleum, in a stabilised form, which remain after the separation of crude oil or condensate from the wellstream in the production facilities and which have not been subjected to further processing."
Nice to know the IRD can be so exact about what natural gas is, and yet fail to include natural persons in the definition of who is liable for tax. Nor does the Acts Interpretation Act – which tells courts how to interpret legislation – shed any light on the person issue.
Just as the US Internal Revenue Service managed to fool a hundred million Americans into paying tax by playing legal word games with them, Kahn argues the NZ IRD’s inability to define "income" or "person" is a deliberate act aimed at undermining New Zealanders’ common law rights not to pay tax on ordinary employment earnings by heavying people into the tax system under colour of law.
"By using the word ‘includes’ rather than the word ‘means’, they don’t define it at all. When you press them on the issue – does this include anything else other than what was specifically listed? – they can’t show you that there’s anything else.
"What we’ve got is that the IRD has been no more successful in answering our questions than the IRS has, which are: What tax am I liable for? What form am I required to file it on? They can’t answer the questions! You know, in America I have over two thousand clients at ARLS, and they’ve never been able to answer the question one time for any of the clients.
"What it really boils down to, if you go look at the original Act, 1908, it’s not even a tax, it’s a contribution by companies to pay the public expenses of His Majesty. That’s all it was for. It was freely and voluntarily given. That’s not a tax, that’s a contribution."
On the battleground of legal technicalities, one of Kahn’s weapons of choice against the NZ IRD is what he claims is the department’s failure to officially "gazette" the requirement for taxpayers to file tax returns.
"If they’re required to file a form at all, it must be published in the Gazette, there must be a volume date and page number that this public obligation exists and the public has to have public notice of it. It’s never been published, so obviously there’s no requirement.
"If somebody doesn’t file a form, they’ll get a letter saying ‘why didn’t you file?’, and the answer is ‘I didn’t know there was an obligation to file. If there is it must be published in the Gazette. Please give me the volume date and page number and I’ll be happy to do it’."
In an OIA request, Carstensen asked the IRD to provide a list of all their tax forms, "and the IR3 and IR5 [tax return] files were not on that list".
But it’s the practical, not the theory, that will determine whether Kahn and his American legal advisors can cause the IRD lasting damage. They’re already claiming victory with a New Zealand taxpayer, Jeanette Harper of Tauranga.
On April 6, 1998, the IRD wrote to Harper telling her she owed the New Zealand Government $286.13 in unpaid tax. She wrote back, under the Privacy Act 1993, demanding to know "What particular tax am I, Jeanette Elizabeth Harper, a human being, liable for, and what particular form am I required to file for that tax?
"Please send to the requester copies of documents that evidence the liability, if any, as a human being, and also the evidence that links this liability to the particular form required to be filled out. I am a law abiding citizen and as such only require the specific facts as requested. I specifically request no opinions be given."
The IRD’s Glenn Harris, in the Tauranga office, replied:
"As a person who is a New Zealand resident you are liable to Income Tax on all your income, in this instance wages, interest and rent. ‘Person’ is defined in Section OB1 of the Income Tax Act. I am aware that it is your understanding this definition includes just ‘a company and a local or public authority; and also includes an unincorporated body of persons…’ but with respect, the definition also includes the word ‘Person’. Person has the natural and ordinary meaning of the word."
The bombardment on the IRD continued, however.
"It is a cardinal rule of statutory interpretation that a word cannot be used to define itself," wrote Harper on advice. "That is to say, you cannot use the term ‘person’ to define the word ‘person’. I’m sorry, but with respect, this makes no sense.
"This is also in direct contrast to the written response from Margaret E. Cotton, National Advisor, Operations Policy, on behalf of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue."
Jeanette Harper was roasting the IRD on its own spit, using a legal opinion she’d obtained from the IRD head office under the Official Information Act. In it, Cotton repeated the definition of ‘person’ contained in the Act, then added: "There is no other legislative reference which alters that definition."
Asked in the same OIA request whether the term "human being" was included in the definition of "person" contained in the Act, Cotton replied:
"Inland Revenue does not hold any information which evidences that the term ‘Human Being’ is included in the definition of the term ‘person’ in the current Income Tax Act."
"I am a human being," Harper wrote to the IRD investigator. "However, for the specific purposes of the Income Tax Act 1994, I do not fall within the definition of the term ‘person’."
There were some further shots fired, but that’s the essence of it. Ultimately, Harper did not file a tax return this year, and instead wrote in to say she did not believe she had earned any ‘income’ as defined by the Act, and therefore was not required to file a tax return.
The IRD accepted her letter and refunded a $50 late filing penalty charge.
Harper’s status as New Zealand’s highest profile non-taxpayer (except perhaps for people associated with Fay Richwhite & Co) is no accident. Her son is accountant Andrew Carstensen, the head of New Zealand Rights Litigators – an offshoot of Eddie Kahn’s American Rights Litigators.
"Basically the issue is quite simple, people have to get into the mindset: they are either natural persons born with human rights, or they are inferior serfs still subject to the Crown’s orders and taxes."
After more than 60 letters and OIA or Privacy Act requests of the IRD, Carstensen believes he has evidence the income tax in New Zealand is voluntary, and he believes the IRD is writhing under the pressure.
"What I’ve found over time is that if you ask them a question they’ll give you a straight answer, somewhere in the letter, and then they’ll spend the rest of the letter saying what they’ve just said is not right."
Case in point? Take this letter from the IRD’s Margaret Cotton to Carstensen under the OIA.
"In [your request] you have asked for copies of the delegation authority order of notice for ‘human beings’ to keep Income Tax records.
"There is no legislative reference in the Inland Revenue Acts which specifically require ‘human beings’ to keep income tax records. The legislation requires taxpayers and persons to keep income tax records.
"As a taxpayer is a person and persons are in common parlance human beings, human beings are required to keep income tax records."
So in one paragraph there is no requirement for human beings to keep tax records, but in the next the IRD says there is.
New Zealand Rights Litigators then fired off a series of OIA requests to the IRD that make fascinating reading. In the first, they asked if it was compulsory for an individual to have a tax file number.
On 20 September 1999, the IRD’s David Belchamber wrote back on behalf of the Commissioner:
"There is no provision in either that [the Income Tax] Act or the Tax Administration Act 1994 that makes it compulsory for taxpayers to have a tax file number."
You heard it right: there is no law requiring you to have an IRD number. Carstensen, Eddie Kahn and others believe this provides a major clue as to the voluntary nature of income tax. Kahn argues that if the Government had a lawful right to tax natural persons, it would have made tax numbers compulsory. Instead, you are given a choice: you can comply, or not.
But the Government, like the US Government, has a card up its sleeve. Knowing that it has complete control over companies, the IRD has told companies that where a worker chooses to exercise their legal right not to provide a tax file number, the company is required by law to deduct a flat rate tax of 45% from whatever that worker receives. The tax is imposed on the company’s wage expenditure, not on the employee.
Those who "voluntarily" accept the IRD number will face tax deductions as low as 19.5% as a reward.
A similar "voluntary" carrot and stick approach was adopted by the Australian Government ten years ago in its ill-fated bid to introduce a "voluntary" national ID card. Australians were told the card was not compulsory for natural persons, but that businesses or banks who traded with a cardless person would face fines of up to $20,000.
With the controversial new NZ drivers licences, applicants are asked to sign consent forms allowing the Government to use their information. If the licences are compulsory, critics argue, why does the Government need your permission? In the US and Canada, researchers have discovered that drivers licences – like income tax – are voluntary for natural persons, but that if you register a vehicle or apply for a licence you are effectively entering a contract with the government giving them the power from that moment on to punish you for breaching the rules of the contract.
But back to the IRD. In a second letter, the tax department said that although it was not compulsory for anyone to have an IRD number, failure to provide one meant the person concerned would not be permitted to file a tax return or claim back any overpayment of tax.
So here are two important points: you are not required by law to have a tax number. If you do not provide one, you cannot file a tax return either. Now comes the triple whammy:
"You have asked if you can give up an IRD number and close your account if you wish," wrote the IRD’s David Belchamber.
"I can advise that IRD numbers are normally issued for life. However, the number can be closed off if it is no longer required."
In other words, even if you have an IRD number you can return it and close your account with the tax department. Does this sound like the essence of a compulsory tax system, or do the rules only apply to those who choose to become taxpayers?
There is a big difference, however, between the United States and New Zealand, and the growing tax revolt in New Zealand, Australia and Canada is raising public awareness of that difference to a potentially dangerous level. What happens, argues Carstensen, when it dawns on New Zealanders that legally they really are still feudal serfs who must pay a tithe to the Crown? What happens when they realise that Americans have managed to gain a whole raft of rights that Kiwis and Aussies do not have?
"If you look at the Book of Genesis, chapter 47," says Carstensen, "you see one of history’s first recorded instances of income tax. It tells how the people sold their souls into slavery for the Egyptian Pharaoh. The Pharaoh at the time said ‘OK then, I will take one fifth of everything you earn from now onwards, now that you are my slaves, and you can have four fifths to provide food, clothing and shelter’.
"We’re actually worse off in New Zealand now, where the Government is taking nearly 40% of what we the people are earning, than the Hebrew slaves in Egypt were. In fact, we’re twice as badly off."
At the turn of the century in Britain, according to contemporary encyclopedia reports, the average income tax across all families was six shillings a week, but a person of moderate to small means paid "little in taxes, and, indeed, he can if he chooses escape direct taxation altogether." The rich were "very heavily taxed indeed – often to the extent of a third of his income."
US tax litigator Lynne Meredith calls the new drive to redefine Government taxation powers "a new, financial, War of Independence", which may not be far from the truth.
Constitutional experts in New Zealand claim the Crown has absolute control in this country because there is no written constitution guaranteeing the individual sovereignty of NZ citizens.
"The Government doesn’t want it that way, because adopting a Constitution as the fundamental law of the nation could remove a Government’s right to introduce reforms or policy initiatives that were in conflict with the Constitution," remarked one constitutional lawyer privately.
"At the moment, the Government has all the power. If these tax protesters are successful, all that will happen is the Government will pass new statutory law to negate it. New Zealanders only have the rights that the Crown allows them to have."
Andrew Carstensen doesn’t think the Government would have the courage to publicly slap its citizens in the face and risk a domestic political crisis.
"My feeling is that they won’t change it. If they do, then they’re admitting that previously a natural person did not have to pay tax and they could be faced with refund claims. Kiwis have a choice. They have the right to be free or the right to be enslaved. But people genuinely don’t realise they have a choice."
And critics argue that it really is a choice. Canadian tax researcher Eldon Warman, heading a movement called "De-Tax Canada", says people often ask why the Government won’t simply close the loophole by changing the law. He doesn’t believe they can.
"If they could have written the [Canadian] Income Tax Act so as to include natural persons, it would never have been written that way in the beginning or rewritten that way in subsequent amendments. The Government wouldn’t have had to resort to manipulating contract law and to implementing other elaborate means to play upon the legalese ignorance of the Canadian people.
"But, further, the basis of this detax system is the fact that the Government cannot make statutes, rules or regulations requiring a natural person to either make, or not to make, a contract. It would be an interference in the property right."
But there is another issue: what happens if so many New Zealanders refuse to pay tax that it causes a Government crisis anyway? With public opinion of the IRD at an all time low, and many New Zealanders angry at the department’s apparent inability to collect hundreds of millions of dollars from tax dodging big business, some officials are admitting privately there is a real risk that the tax system and the Government could be crippled by large numbers of people opting to use cheap tax haven and trust solutions to keep their income and assets out of reach, the same way the big boys do.
Eddie Kahn says it’s a wake-up call.
"I think that New Zealanders need to take control of their Government, and the way you do that is by telling your MPs: ‘no’.
"You have to get into this mentality: ‘I pay your salary. You’re there for my benefit, not yours. If you’re not benefiting me, then I don’t want you there’.
"You are really in control, as long as you exercise control. If you don’t exercise it the politicians will assume it for themselves."
Carstensen expects the New Zealand Government to wheel in friendly constitutional lawyers to try to play down or rubbish the existence of a problem – "but then, you’d expect them to do that, wouldn’t you. To do anything else would be admitting they have no legal right to govern, and no right to levy taxes. The Government, through the news media, has to try and convince the public that there is no crisis and no power vacuum."
A decade ago, the citizens of California brought their Government to its knees in a tax strike. Ultimately, New Zealanders, Australians and Canadians are yet to test their powers, but the knowledge that the US Internal Revenue Service is allowing Americans to opt out of the tax system is likely to put incredible pressure on the former British colonies and the constitutional void appearing to surround them.