+menu-


  • Category Archives How Complicated is it?
  • The Evolution of Allies Wars and the UN

    1907-2018 Learning from World History?

    How one thing leads to another.

     I found this amazing quote, circa unknown?

    “THERE COMES A TIME IN YOUR LIFE WHEN YOU CAN NO LONGER PUT OFF CHOOSING. YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE ONE PATH OR THE OTHER. You can live safe and be protected by people just like you, OR YOU CAN STAND UP AND BE A LEADER FOR WHAT IS RIGHT. Always, remember this: People never remember the crowd;

    THEY REMEMBER THE ONE PERSON THAT HAD THE COURAGE TO SAY AND DO WHAT NO ONE WOULD DO.”

    —————————————————————————-

    2017 Nov 2-8 DISSATISFIED WITH THE PATH AMERICA WAS ON 72%

    ——————————————————-

    AMERICA WAS DEFINITELY ON THE WRONG PATH

    America Citizens remembered  POLITICALLY INCORRECT Donald J. Trump, American Citizens voted, Trump was elected President of the United States on Nov 8, 2016 and sworn in Jan 20, 2017.

    INDEED, DONALD J. TRUMP WAS THE ONE PERSON THAT HAD THE COURAGE TO SAY AND DO WHAT NO ONE WOULD DO.

    ———————————————————————————-

    History of the United Nations | outreach.un.org.mun

    https://outreach.un.org/mun/content/history-united-nations

    THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER IS THE TREATY THAT ESTABLISHED THE UNITED NATIONS, IT WAS RATIFIED ON 24 OCTOBER 1945. …

    WHICH WILL AFFORD TO ALL NATIONS THE MEANS OF DWELLING IN SAFETY WITHIN THEIR OWN BOUNDARIES, AND WHICH WILL AFFORD ASSURANCE THAT ALL THE MEN IN ALL THE LANDS MAY LIVE OUT THEIR LIVES IN FREEDOM FROM FEAR AND WANT.

    ———————————————————————————-

    The United States is the largest provider of financial contributions to the United Nations, providing 22 percent of the entire UN budget in 2017 (in comparison the next biggest contributor is Japan with almost 10 percent, while EU countries pay a total of above 30 percent).

    Only five of NATO’s 28 members — the U.S., Greece, Poland, Estonia and the U.K. — meet the 2% of GDP spending target. The rest lag behind. Germany spent 1.19% of its GDP on defense last year, France forked out 1.78%. Canada, Slovenia, Belgium, Spain and Luxembourg all spend less than 1%.Mar 1, 2017

    —————————————————————————————-

    America Citizens remembered and chose Donald J. Trump, American Citizens  voted, Trump was elected President of the United States on Nov 8, 2016 and sworn in Jan 20, 2017.

    ——————————————————————————————————

    ONE YEAR LATER….. President Trump spoke at the World Economic Forum in  Davos Switzerland.

    “But America first does not mean America alone,” he said. “When the United States grows, so does the world.”

    —————————————————————————————————————-

    Back to The Evolution of Allies, Wars and the UN

    Sorting out the allies, the good and the bad allied powers.

    World War I the War to End All Wars, was a WORLD  WAR originating in Europe it began in 1914 and lasted until 1918.

    During the conflict, GERMANY, AUSTRIA-HUNGARY, BULGARIA AND THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE THE CENTRAL POWERS (bad guys)

    ——————————————————————————

    THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE?

    TURKISH: Osmanlı İmparatorluğu) was an imperial power that existed from 1299 to 1923 (634 years), one of the largest empires to rule the borders of the Mediterranean Sea. AT THE HEIGHT OF ITS POWER, it included Anatolia, the Middle East, part of North Africa, and south-eastern Europe.

    —————————————————————————

    AND, THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE (REALLY BAD GUYS)  1914-1918  FOUGHT AGAINST GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, RUSSIA, ITALY, ROMANIA, JAPAN AND THE UNITED STATES, THE ALLIED POWERS (good guys)

    ————————————————————-

    ANOTHER GLARING EXAMPLE OF WHY HISTORY MATTERS IN 2018

    ANOTHER CHAPTER IN THE BOOK OF REVELATIONS BY PEARL REVERE

    ———————————————————————————-

    The Evolution of Allies, Wars and the UN

    JAN 26, 2018 – PUTIN’S  RUSSIA IS A GLOBAL POWER TO BE RECKONED WITH.

    1945 THE UNITED NATIONS

    2018  (5) NATIONS WITH VETO POWER IN UNITED NATIONS, CHINA, FRANCE, RUSSIA (THE SOVIET UNION), THE UNITED KINGDOM, THE UNITED STATES

    ——————————————————————–

    A BRIEF HISTORY OF RUSSIA. Ancient Russia (800-1200). The Mongols and the Emergence of Moscow (1237-1613). The Romanovs (1613-1825). The Path to Revolution (1825-1920). The Soviet Era (1920-1991). Post-Communism to the Present

    ———————————————————————–

    RUSSIA 1894 Franco-Russian alliance

    RUSSIA 1904 Entente Cordiale

    RUSSIA 1907 Anglo-Russian agreement

    RUSSIA 1907 THE TRIPLE ENTENTE WAS THE MILITARY ALLIANCE FORMED BETWEEN RUSSIA, GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE BEFORE WORLD WAR I.

    TO OFFSET THE ALLIANCE FORMED BETWEEN IMPERIAL GERMANY, AUSTRIA-HUNGARY AND ITALY.

    —————————————————————-

    RUSSIA 1917 THE ALLIED POWERS

    THE POWERS KNOWN AS THE ALLIES IN WORLD WAR I WERE PREDOMINANTLY: GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, RUSSIA AND ITALY.

    THE US JOINED THE WAR IN 1917 At almost the same time, THE RUSSIANS WERE FORCED TO DROP OUT of the war due to The Soviet government signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk on March 3, 1918, ending four years of aggression between Russia and Germany.

    ———————————————————————–

    1920 THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS

    THE UNITED STATES DID NOT JOIN THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS

    RUSSIA USSR , RUSSIA joined  the League of Nations September 18, 1934

    1939  USSR  RUSSIA WAS EXPELLED BY THE LEAGUE NATIONS

    ——————————————–

    RUSSIA 1942 THE UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION

     U.S. PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT, UK PRIME MINISTER CHURCHILL, MAXIM LITVINOV, OF THE USSR (RUSSIA), AND T. V. SOONG, OF CHINA

    ———————————————-

    RUSSIA 1945 THE UNITED NATIONS

    CHINA, FRANCE, RUSSIA (THE SOVIET UNION), THE UNITED KINGDOM, THE UNITED STATES

    —————————————————–

    RUSSIA 2018  (5) NATIONS WITH VETO POWER IN UNITED NATIONS

    CHINA, FRANCE, RUSSIA (THE SOVIET UNION), THE UNITED KINGDOM, THE UNITED STATES

    ———————————————————————

    How complicated is it Jan 26, 2018?

     Identifying and sorting out the fickle allies flip flopping frequently, with regards to their loyalties, interests.

    Identifying and sorting out the enduring allies.  Enduring,  Besides meaning long-lasting, enduring sometimes means long-suffering as, during World 1 and World War 2. 

    ———————————————————————————-

    1907- 1920 THE ALLIED POWERS

    THE ALLIES OF WORLD WAR I, or Entente Powers, (good guys) were the countries that opposed the CENTRAL POWERS (bad guys) in the First World War. The members of the original TRIPLE ENTENTE OF 1907 WERE THE (good guys) FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE BRITISH EMPIRE AND THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE.

    The United States joined THE ALLIED POWERS IN 1917 after the country could no longer stay neutral, as Woodrow Wilson had planned in the Proclamation of Neutrality.

     The Allies, the Allied Powers, were ultimately comprised of 25 nations

    The US joined the war in 1917, which changed everything. … At almost the same time, the RUSSIANS were forced to drop out of the war due to the Russian Revolution and their inability to fight both the German Army and the communist rebellion….

    —————————————————————————

    JANUARY 10, 1920, THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS FORMALLY COMES INTO BEING WHEN THE COVENANT OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, RATIFIED BY 42 NATIONS IN 1919, TAKES EFFECT.

    —————————————————————————————–

    ALLIES  AND ALLIED POWERS 1894 -1907

    TRIPLE ENTENTE, association between GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND RUSSIA, THE NUCLEUS OF THE ALLIED POWERS IN WORLD WAR I. It developed from the Franco-Russian alliance that gradually developed and was formalized in 1894, the Anglo-French Entente Cordiale of 1904, and an Anglo-Russian agreement of 1907, which brought the Triple Entente into existence.

    THE TRIPLE ENTENTE WAS THE MILITARY ALLIANCE FORMED BETWEEN RUSSIA, GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE BEFORE WORLD WAR I.

     AN EXAMPLE OF TRIPLE ENTENTE IS RUSSIA, GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE’S FORMAL BOND WHICH WAS FORMALIZED IN 1907 TO OFFSET THE ALLIANCE FORMED BETWEEN IMPERIAL GERMANY, AUSTRIA-HUNGARY AND ITALY.

    ————————————————————————————–

    THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS JANUARY 10, 1920 -1946

    Between 1920 and 1939, a total of 63 countries became member states of the League of Nations. The Covenant forming the League of Nations was included in the Treaty of Versailles and came into force on 10 January 1920.

    THE UNITED STATES DID NOT JOIN THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS

    Despite Wilson’s efforts to gain public support for the League of Nations, the United States government failed to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, the final agreement of the ending of World War I, and therefore, did not join the League.

    RUSSIA (USSR) joined the League of Nations. September 18, 1934  general meeting of the League of Nations adopted a resolution on the admission of the USSR into the League and the inclusion of its representative to its Board as a permanent member.

    1939 THE USSR  RUSSIA was expelled by the league nations.

    Of the 42 founder members of the League of Nations,  only 23 remained members until the league of nations was dissolved in 1946. 7 left, withdrew or were expelled before 1946.

    The complete list can be found here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations_members

    IN 1946, THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS WAS OFFICIALLY DISSOLVED WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE UNITED NATIONS.

    ——————————————————————————————————

    THE UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION Allies 1942?

    On New Year’s Day 1942, U.S. PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT, UK PRIME MINISTER CHURCHILL, MAXIM LITVINOV, OF THE USSR (RUSSIA), AND T. V. SOONG, OF CHINA, signed a short document which later came to be known as THE UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION AND THE NEXT DAY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF (22) TWENTY-TWO  OTHER  NATIONS ADDED THEIR SIGNATURES.

    ———————————————————————————————————–

    THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER Allies 1945?

    The United Nations officially came into existence on 24 October 1945, when the Charter had been ratified by CHINA, FRANCE, RUSSIA (THE SOVIET UNION), THE UNITED KINGDOM, THE UNITED STATES and by a majority of other signatories.

    ——————————————————————————————

    History of the United Nations | outreach.un.org.mun

    https://outreach.un.org/mun/content/history-united-nations

    THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER IS THE TREATY THAT ESTABLISHED THE UNITED NATIONS, IT WAS RATIFIED ON 24 OCTOBER 1945. …

    WHICH WILL AFFORD TO ALL NATIONS THE MEANS OF DWELLING IN SAFETY WITHIN THEIR OWN BOUNDARIES, AND WHICH WILL AFFORD ASSURANCE THAT ALL THE MEN IN ALL THE LANDS MAY LIVE OUT THEIR LIVES IN FREEDOM FROM FEAR AND WANT.

    ——————————————————————————-

    JAN 26, 2018 HOW COMPLICATED IS IT?

    CLICK ON THE LINK BELOW…READ MORE  STUFF ON The Evolution of Allies Wars

    Who were the allied and central powers in WWI? – Quora

    https://www.quora.com/Who-were-the-allied-and-central-powers-in-WWI

    Apr 17, 2016 – Allied Powers: * The United Kingdom (including colonies and affiliated states) (1914) * France (1914) * Russia (1914) * Serbia (1914) * Belgium (1914) * Romania (1915) * Japan (1914) * Italy (1915) * United States (1917) * Brazil (1917) * Montene…

    ————————————————————————————–

    OVER 1500 WORDS AND I HAVEN’T EVEN TOUCHED ON THE WORLD WAR 2 ALLIED POWERS.

    The main Allied powers were Great Britain, The United States, China, and RUSSIA (the Soviet Union). The leaders of the Allies were Franklin Roosevelt (the United States), Winston Churchill (Great Britain), and Joseph Stalin (the Soviet Union).

    ———————————————————————

    2018 FALSE NEWS ONLINE  MEDIA REWRITING WORLD HISTORY.

    The United Nations is an international organization founded in 1945 after the Second World War BY 51 COUNTRIES committed to maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations and promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights.

     


  • Something Fishy Going on in WA State

    House Bill 2859: Modifying the management of the state’s fisheries by creating the department of fisheries separate from the department of wildlife

    Introduced in the House on January 18, 2018   Official Text and Analysis.

    View House Bill 2859

    ———————————-

    click on the link below … scroll down through the 226 pages

    Original Bill

    PAGE (4) NEW SECTION.  Sec. 1001.

     IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE TO HAVE….

    226 PAGES OF THIS?

    —————————————————————————–

     I am posting  this on my website,  behindmyback.org,  As  It is in the “BEST”  interest of the citizens  of  WA  State to be  “FULLY” informed and have an opportunity to make public comment.

    —————————

    Page (11) This is not just about fish….

    The director may:
    (1) SPEND MONEYS
    to improve natural growing conditions for fish
    by constructing  fishways, installing screens, and removing obstructions to migratory fish

    PAGE (79) AFFECTING CLALLAM COUNTY 2017 SMP UPDATE?

     Sec. 1121. RCW 77.55.141and 2010 c 210 s 28 are each amended to 21 read as follows:

    (1)In order to protect the property of marine waterfront shoreline owners it is necessary to facilitate issuance of permits for bulkheads or rockwalls under certain conditions.

    (2)The department shall issue a permit with or without conditions within forty-five days of receipt of a complete and accurate application which authorizes commencement of construction, replacement, or repair of a marine beach front protective bulkhead or rockwall for single-family type residences or property UNDER THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

    ——————————

    PAGE ONE (1) OF 226 

    AN ACT Relating to modifying the management of the state’s  fisheries by creating the department of fisheries separate from the department of wildlife;

    Amending RCW’S PAGE (1) OF 226

    77.08.022, 77.08.024, 77.12.010,77.12.275, 77.12.420,

    77.12.455, 77.12.560, 77.12.760, 77.12.850,77.12.858,

    77.12.860, 77.12.865, 77.15.300, 77.15.310, 77.15.320,

    77.15.350, 77.15.370, 77.15.380, 77.15.382, 77.15.390,

    77.15.500,77.15.520, 77.15.522, 77.15.530, 77.15.540,

    77.15.552, 77.15.554,77.15.565, 77.15.570, 77.15.590,

    77.15.620, 77.15.640, 77.15.803,77.15.813, 77.15.805,

    77.15.809,77.15.811, 77.18.050, 77.18.060,77.50.010,

    77.50.020, 77.50.040, 77.50.050, 77.50.070, 77.50.080,

    77.50.090, 77.50.100, 77.50.110, 77.50.120, 77.55.021,

    AND, A FULL PAGE (2) OF 226

    and 79A.80.090; reenacting and amending

    RCW 77.55.011, 77.120.010, 77.15.080, and 77.15.160; adding a new Title to the Revised Code of Washington to be codified as Title 75A RCW; creating new sections; recodifying RCW,77.55.041,77.55.081, 77.55.111, 77.55.121, 77.55.131, 77.55.141, 7.55.151, 77.55.161, 77.55.181, 77.55.191, 77.55.241, 77.55.251, 77.55.261,77.55.291, 77.55.331, 77.57.040, 77.57.060, 77.60.020, 77.60.030,77.60.050, 77.60.100, 77.60.0…….

    AND,  A FULL PAGE (3) OF 226

    AND PAGE (4) OF 226

    77.135.210, 77.135.220, 77.135.230, AND, 77.135.240; repealing RCW 177.15.005, 43.300.005, AND, 77.04.013; prescribing penalties; providing an effective date; and providing an expiration date.

    ——————————————————-

    BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

    PART ONE

    DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES CREATED

    PAGE (4) ….NEW SECTION.  Sec. 1001.

    IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE

    TO HAVE 226 PAGES OF THIS?

    ————————————————-

    I am posting this on my website behindmyback.org,  As it is in the “BEST”  interest of the citizens of  WA State to be “FULLY”  informed and have an opportunity to make public comment.


  • Estate Death Tax Liens 5.5.8 – 5.5.8.1

    As promised, a brief posting on the complicated federal  IRS Estate Death Tax lien laws.

    It has taken nearly 10 years for me to find this 9000 word IRS Estate Death Lien Tax documentation on line.

    Below, is the link to the IRS Estate Death Tax Liens 5.5.8 – 5.5.8.1

    SHOCKING? WHO KNEW?

    An IRC § 6324(a) lien is automatically created when any resident of the United States dies. No recorded notice is required for it to become effective

    The IRC § 6324(a) estate tax lien attaches at the date of death to every part of the gross estate, even when the property has not yet been placed under the control of the fiduciary.

    It attaches to the extent of the estate tax shown due on the return, and of any deficiency in estate tax found due upon review and audit.

    ———————————————————————–

    Indeed, the IRS has gone to to great lengths (9000 words) to protect THEIR DEATH TAX LIEN INTEREST in your family’s Estate.

    OPEN AND TRANSPARENT? WHO KNEW?

    An IRC § 6324(a) lien is automatically created when any resident of the United States dies. No recorded notice is required for it to become effective

    Even though no notice is recorded, the lien has priority over all subsequent interests in the property.

    ——————————————————–

    Another 9000 word Chapter in the Book of Revelations by Pearl Revere.

    WHAT LENGTH, DOES A  SMALL BUSINESS OWNING AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE TO GO TO, TO PROTECT HIS HEIRS FROM THE IRS ESTATE DEATH TAX?

    —————————————————-

    Oct 19, 2017 SARCASM FROM THE LEFT

    WASHINGTON ―  Whenever a small business owner dies, a cruel tax man swoops in on his mourning family with a hefty bill, forcing the children of farmers and mom-and-pop shops to sell off the family business to pay the government.

    ————————————————————

    Dec 22, 2017 PARTIAL RELIEF FROM THE RIGHT

    12/22/2017 Became Public Law No: 115-97.

    Tax Cuts and Jobs Act – HR1 – 115th Congress (2017-2018): An Act to …

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1

    Shown Here: Passed House amended (11/16/2017). (This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on November 13, 2017. The summary of that version is repeated here.) Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) to reduce tax rates and modify policies, credits, …

    Unfortunately, the complicated IRS Estate death tax liens are still alive online, just the exemptions have been  raised.

    TOO BAD THE IRS DEATH TAX CUTS ARE  NOT RETROACTIVE

    —————————————————————–

    Estate Tax Liens 5.5.8 –  5.5.8.1

    WARNING: An IRS  table briefly describing the characteristics of Federal tax liens associated with federal estate tax liabilities,

    IS MISLEADING.

    THE LINK BELOW IS ABOUT A 9000 WORD DOCUMENT

    ——————————————————–

    5.5.8 Estate Tax Liens | Internal Revenue Service – IRS.gov

    https://www.irs.gov/irm/part5/irm_05-005-008

    The following table briefly describes the characteristics of Federal tax liens associated with federal estate tax liabilities. … Form 668 Notice of Federal Tax Lien ….. for preparation, selection of the appropriate optional paragraph, and issuance of a Letter 950-I – Preliminary Internal Revenue Code § 6166 Determination Letter.

    Chapter 5. Decedent Estates and Estate Taxes

    Section 8. Estate Tax Liens

    5.5.8 Estate Tax Liens

    5.5.8.1 (06-23-2005)

    Section Overview Characteristics of Estate Tax Liens

    1. This section covers estate tax liens. Before filing a lien on an estate tax case, give careful thought to the advantages and limitations of each type of estate tax lien.
    2. In many cases, the general IRC § 6324(a) lien is the best tool to protect the government’s interest. It is automatically created when any resident of the United States dies. No recorded notice is required for it to become effective. It attaches to all of the assets that are part of the decedent’s gross estate and are required to be reported on Form 706, U.S. Estate Tax Return, and is security for any estate taxes that may be determined to be due. If a probate asset (assets in the name of the decedent at time of death) is transferred or liquidated without payment of the tax, but for the exceptions detailed at IRM 5.5.8.2(2), the lien continues to attach to the asset. If a non-probate asset (property described under IRC § 2034 to § 2042) is transferred or liquidated without payment of the tax, a liability equal to the value of the asset at the time of the decedent’s death becomes due from the transferee. A separate assessment against the transferee is not needed. Assets of the gross estate can be sold or encumbered free of the IRC § 6324(a) lien if the proceeds from the sale or loan are used for the payment of charges against the estate or expenses of its administration that are allowed by any court having jurisdiction.
    3. A limitation of the general estate tax lien is that it has an absolute life of 10 years. It cannot be extended. Estate tax attributable to an estate’s interest in a closely held business may be paid over a 14-year period if an extension of time to pay under IRC § 6166 is in effect which could potentially leave the Service without lien protection for four years if a notice of lien is not recorded before the 10 years have elapsed.
    4. The filing of Form 668-J (the special IRC § 6423A lien for taxes deferred under IRC 6166) will secure the deferred taxes for the duration of the extension. The collection statute of limitations under IRC § 6502 is suspended during the period of the extension.
      1. The lien attaches only the property specified on the recorded lien and in the IRC § 6166 agreement. A lien on property with equivalent value can be substituted for the actual IRC § 6166 property upon agreement between the Service and all parties with an interest in the property.
      2. When estate property is listed on the recorded Form 668-J, it is automatically released from the effects of the general IRC § 6324(a) estate tax lien.
      3. The IRC § 6324A lien is a negotiated lien that is created only when both the Service and all persons and/or entities with an ownership interest in the property listed on the notice of lien agree to it’s recording.
    5. The filing of Form 668-H – the special IRC § 6324B lien for special use valuations under IRC § 2032A or qualified family owned business interest property under IRC § 2057 will secure the potential recapture tax during the required 10 year holding period. IRC § 2057 elections may be made only on estates of decedents dying before December 31, 2003.

    5.5.8.1.1 (06-23-2005)

    Comparison Chart Federal Estate Tax Liens

    1. The following table briefly describes the characteristics of Federal tax liens associated with federal estate tax liabilities.

    Code Section

    How Created

    Attributes

    Form Title

    6321

    assessment, balance owed, notice & demand

    ·         attaches to all right, title and interest of the decedent in any probate property undistributed at time lien arises

    ·         10 year life can be extended

    Form 668 Notice of Federal Tax Lien

    6324(a)

    at death

    ·         attaches to estate assets listed on the Form 706 the value of which are the basis of the tax liability

    no form

    ·         recording not required to be choate (their glitch)

    ·         absolute life of 10 years

    ·         follows the probate assets if transferred or liquidated, a lien of comparable value arises upon any property of the party who received proceeds from sale or encumbrance of non-probate property

    6324A

    Upon election by the estate and signed agreement by all parties with an interest in the property on the lien

    ·         attaches the specific property shown on the lien

    ·         must be recorded

    ·         recorded notice lists all parties of interest and the specific property that is subject to the lien

    Form 668J Notice of Estate Tax Lien under Internal Revenue Laws

    6324B

    Upon election by estate of the special use 2032A or qualified family owned business interest 2057

    ·         pertains to farm or business real estate only (2032A) or family owned business property

    ·         notice must be recorded

    ·         recorded notice lists all qualified heirs and has a complete legal description of the subject real property

    Form 668H Notice of Federal Estate Tax Lien Under Internal Revenue Laws

    5.5.8.2 (06-23-2005)

    General Estate Tax Lien under IRC § 6324(a)

    1. The estate tax lien provided for by IRC § 6324(a) is similar in character to the lien imposed by IRC § 6321. The general lien imposed by IRC § 6321 and the special lien for estate tax are not necessarily exclusive of each other, but can be cumulative. Whereas the IRC § 6324(a) lien arises upon death and attaches to all probate and non-probate assets comprising the gross estate, after the tax liability has been assessed, notice and demand is given, and there is a neglect or refusal to pay, the IRC § 6321 lien arises and also attaches to all as yet undistributed probate assets. Neglect and refusal to pay is generally inferred from notice and demand and an unpaid balance.
    2. Even though no notice is recorded, the lien has priority over all subsequent interests in the property.

    Except

    Unless

    purchaser of or holder of a security interest in probate property at the direction of a court having jurisdiction and proceeds are used to pay charges against the estate

    no exception

    purchaser or holder of a security interest in probate property after executor has been released from personal liability under IRC § 2204 if seller is an heir, legatee, devisee, or distributee

    no exception

    purchaser of or holder of a security interest in non-probate property

    no exception

    purchaser of or holder of a security interest in securities

    knowledge of lien exists

    purchaser of a motor vehicle

    knowledge of lien exists

    retail purchaser of tangible personal property

    purchaser buying with the intent to hinder, evade, or defeat collection

    purchaser of personal property (defined at IRC § 6334(a)) valued at less than $1,000 at a casual sale

    knowledge of lien exists or is one in a series intended to liquidate most of the assets

    local law lien securing the price of repairs or improvements

    lienor gives up possession of property after lien arises

    local real estate tax & special assessment

    local law does not give them priority over other liens that are filed first

    residential property subject to a lien for repairs & improvements

    the contract price is more than $5,000

    attorney’s liens

    fees are unreasonable, the lien is not valid under local law, or is subject to offset

    certain insurance contracts

    knowledge of lien exists

    deposit-secured loans

    knowledge of lien

    1. The IRC § 6324(a) estate tax lien attaches at the date of death to every part of the gross estate, even when the property has not yet been placed under the control of the fiduciary. It attaches to the extent of the estate tax shown due on the return, and of any deficiency in estate tax found due upon review and audit. The estate tax lien continues for a maximum period of ten years after the decedent’s death or until the tax is paid.
    2. IRC § 6324(a)(2) provides that when the estate tax is not paid when due, any spouse, transferee, trustee, surviving tenant, person in possession of the property by reason of the exercise, nonexercise, or release of a power of appointment, or beneficiary, is liable for the payment of the estate tax to the extent of the value of any non-probate estate assets held by, or passing to such person.
    3. There is no need to assess the liability against the person liable under IRC § 6324(a)(2). The collection statute under IRC § 6502 applies. IRC § 6324(a)(2) also makes all of the property of such person subject to a lien just like the estate tax lien if their transfer of estate assets divests the assets of the estate tax lien. This ″like-lien″ continues until the IRC § 6324(a) estate tax lien expires or the estate tax is paid.
      Example: A beneficiary of a decedent’s trust receives real property valued at $100,000 on the Form 706. The beneficiary sells the property for $125,000 and invests the proceeds. Because the property was non-probate property, the purchaser takes title free of the IRC § 6324(a) estate tax lien. However, a like-lien in the amount of $100,000 now attaches to all of the property of the beneficiary as long as the IRC § 6324(a) lien has not expired. A separate assessment against the beneficiary is not necessary.

    5.5.8.3 (06-23-2005)

    Processing Requests for Release, Discharge of Property From, or Subordination of Unrecorded IRC § 6324(a) Lien

    1. Release – Advisory occasionally receives requests for release of the unrecorded estate tax lien. However, just as there is no provision for recording a notice of the unrecorded estate tax lien, there is no provision for recording a release. Applicants should be instructed to provide documentation to potential purchasers of the decedent’s property that either there was no Form 706 filing requirement, or, if Form 706 was filed and a closing letter has been provided to the estate by Estate & Gift Tax (E&G), a copy of the return, the Estate Tax Closing Letter ( Letter 627, and verification of payment, are evidence that the IRC § 6324(a) lien has been satisfied.
    2. Discharge
      1. Applications for discharge under IRC § 6325(c) are usually submitted on Form 4422 , Application for Certificate Discharging Property Subject to Estate Tax Lien. These applications will be processed by E&G if Form 706 has not been filed or if a closing letter has not been issued. If Form 706 has been filed and a closing letter has been issued, applications for discharge under IRC § 6325(c) will be processed by Advisory. Form 792 , United States Certificate Discharging Property Subject to Estate Tax Lien, is used to discharge property under IRC § 6325(c).
        Example:An estate submits Form 4422 requesting a discharge under IRC § 6325(c). Form 706 has been filed and the reported estate tax has been paid, but a closing letter has not been issued. Because the final amount of estate tax that may be due has not yet been determined, E&G will process the application.
        Example: An estate submits Form 4422 requesting a discharge under IRC § 6325(c). Form 706 has been filed and reported estate tax has been paid, but a closing letter has not been issued. Because the estate representative believes she has paid the estate tax in full, she proposes to use the proceeds from the sale of the probate property to pay other creditors. Because the final amount of estate tax that may be due has not yet been determined, E&G will process the application.
        Example: An estate submits Form 4422 requesting a discharge under IRC § 6325(c). Form 706 has been filed and a closing letter has been issued, but a balance remains due for which a extension of time to pay has been granted. The estate is selling a parcel of probate real property but needs the proceeds to pay necessary administrative expenses. The estate has provided for the payment of the taxes by listing a second parcel of real property for sale. Because the final amount of the estate tax due is known, Advisory will process the application.
      2. Applications for discharge under IRC § 6325(b) will be processed by Advisory. If Form 706 has not been filed or if a closing letter has not been issued, Advisory will consult with E&G in order to determine the government’s lien interest.
    3. Subordination – Applications for subordination under IRC § 6325(d) will be processed by Advisory. If Form 706 has not been filed or if a closing letter has not been issued, Advisory will consult with E&G in order to determine the government’s lien interest.

    5.5.8.4 (06-23-2005)

    Special Valuation Estate Tax Lien Under IRC § 6324B

    1. IRM § 2032A provides for special valuation for certain farms and closely held family business real property if the qualified heirs decide to continue operating the farm or business for at least 10 years. Because the property is valued at less then its fair market value, less estate tax is due. IRM § 2057 provides for a special valuation for certain qualified family owned business interests and also results in less estate tax being due. If the criteria for the IRC § 2032A or IRC § 2057 valuations do not continue during the required holding period, the savings in tax attributable to the special valuation is “recaptured” and must be repaid by the heirs who inherited the property.
    2. IRC § 6324B imposes a lien attaching to the specific property valued under IRC § 2032A. IRC § 2057(h)(3)(p) imposes a lien identical to the IRC § 6324B lien to the specific property valued under IRC § 2057.

    5.5.8.4.1 (06-01-2010)

    IRC § 6324B Form 668-H (Advisory Actions)

    1. When the executor elects the special valuation under IRC § 2032A or IRC § 2057, and secures an agreement to the election signed by all parties having an interest in the specially valued property, Estate & Gift Exam (E&G) will complete and forward Form 6111, Notice of Election Under IRC § 2032A and/or IRC § 2057, to Advisory with copies of the following documents:
      1. First 3 pages of Form 706
      2. Schedule A-1 and/or Schedule T
      3. Agreement to special valuation signed by all parties with an interest in the property to be shown on the lien. Only the decedent’s interest in the property is shown on the lien. If the decedent co-owned the property, the co-owner’s interest is not shown on the lien and the co-owner is not required to sign the agreement.
      4. Complete legal descriptions of property to be shown on the lien
      5. Any power of attorney
    2. Verify that each Form 6111 includes a copy of the agreement signed by all ″qualified heirs″ and all other parties having an interest in the property covered by the election. The agreement must designate:
      1. an agent for dealings with the Internal Revenue Service, and
      2. a complete legal description of the property to be shown on the lien
    3. Contact the E&G group manager to resolve any inconsistencies.
    4. Prepare and file Form 668-H, Notice of Federal Estate Lien Under Internal Revenue Laws, (see Exhibit 5.5.8-1) in the name of the estate and all qualified heirs as shown on Form 6111. Only one Form 668-H will be used unless a local jurisdiction requires separate forms. Recording a copy of the agreement to Form 668-H is not necessary. If the qualifying property consists of the decedent’s interest in a closely held corporation, partnership, LLC, etc., consult with Area Counsel to determine if evidence of ownership, such as a stock certificate, must be held as collateral in order for the lien to be effective under local law.

    Note:

    When preparing estate tax liens, the SSN of the decedent and any qualified heirs whose names are shown on the lien will be redacted using the format XXX-XX-1234. Do not redact EINs.

    1. If elections were made under both IRC § 2032A and IRC § 2057, one Form 668-H reflecting the combined maximum tax subject to recapture may be used.
    2. Form 668-H must be prepared manually. However, a PDF version of the form is available on the intranet at http://publish.no.irs.gov/catlg.html
    3. Mail the completed Form 668-H to the Centralized Case Processing Lien Operation (CLU) for recording on a Form 3210.
    4. All documents sent with the lien to the recording office will be returned to CLU. The CLU will be responsible for inputting lien indicators; applicable lien fees and forwarding the recorded lien document back to the originating advisor on Form 3210, Document Transmittal, to maintain with the lien file. If a lien is returned to the Advisor due to insufficient funds, return it to the CLU for corrective action. All liens will be sent to:

    Internal Revenue Service
    Attn: Manager Team 208 – Stop 8420G
    P.O. Box 145595
    Cincinnati, OH 45250-5595

    1. This CLU FORT has responsibility for logging in receipt of the estate tax liens; monitoring the recording process and forwarding the recorded liens to the advisor on a Form 3210. CLU FORT will send acknowledgement of receipt of the lien by returning the Form 3210.
    2. Within 7 business days of receipt, the CLU FORT will mail the lien to the recording office for filing. See IRM 5.19.12.10.2 , for CLU FORT processing procedures and lost lien research procedures.
    3. Advisory is responsible for sending the lien to the lien unit on Form 3210, including the estate name, complete SSN, lien type and request for input of TC 582, TC 583 and TC 360 as applicable. Advisory is also responsible for determining if there is an open module on IDRS and will instruct CLU to input applicable lien indicator/fees. In the case of Form 668-H liens, if there is no open module on IDRS, do not request input of lien indicator/fees on the Form 3210.
    4. Advisors are responsible for ensuring receipt of the recorded lien from CLU and that lien fees have been input, if applicable.
    5. At local option, after coordinating payment of recording fees with the CLU, advisors may mail liens for recording directly to recording offices. However, except for exigent circumstances, advisors may not issue OI’s requesting that a revenue officer deliver an estate tax lien to a recording agency for filing.
    6. Advisory will maintain an ICS case in the name of the estate until the lien is released. Advisory will also maintain a file of retained lien copies with Form 6111 and associated documentation.

    5.5.8.4.2 (03-01-2006)

    Processing Requests for Release of IRC § 6324B Form 668-H

    1. Requests for release of Forms 668-H will be processed by Advisory.
    2. If the qualified heir(s) is requesting a release of lien because the 10 year special use period has elapsed, and assuming no recapture tax is due, instruct the designated agent to submit a written request that the lien be released, including a statement that during the 10 year period no events occurred that would cause recapture of any portion of the tax. The letter should be signed under penalty of perjury. Advisory will consult with the Estate & Gift Tax group manager to determine if any further verification should be secured prior to releasing the lien.
    3. The qualified heir(s) may also request a release of lien because all of the property described on the lien is being sold or removed from special use. In order to receive a release of the lien, the qualified heir(s) must report the recapture event by filing Form 706-A, United States Additional Estate Tax Return (if the section 2032A election was made), or Form 706-D, United States Estate Tax Return Under Code Section 2057, and all tax and interest due must be paid in full. Interest on the Form 706-A begins to accrue at the regular underpayment rate on the date the return is due. Interest on the Form 706-D at the regular underpayment rate is computed from the original due date of the Form 706, not taking into account any extensions of time to file that may have been granted, until the date the recapture tax is paid. Each qualified heir must file a Form 706-A or Form 706-D reporting and paying the tax and interest due that is attributable to their share of the inherited property.
    4. Secured Forms 706-A or 706-D, with any payments and or approved extensions, are forwarded via Form 3210 , overnight mail, to: IRS, Cincinnati Submission Processing Center, 201 W. Rivercenter Blvd., Covington, KY, 41011, Attn: Mail Stop 31. Preparation of a posting voucher is not necessary unless penalties are applicable and being paid. Ensure that the return and check are identified as belonging to the heir and indicate NMF by placing “N” behind the heir’s SSN on the return and the check. Enter the tax period in YYYYMM format at the top of the return. The period ended is the earliest date shown on schedule A, column C. For example, if the property disposition date is 3/10/2005, the tax period would be 200503.
    5. Releases of estate tax liens are prepared by advisors and the procedures for recording described in IRM 5.5.8.4.1. However, follow up to obtain a copy of a recorded release is not necessary.

    Note:

    Whenever contact is made with an estate representative who is requesting a release of an estate tax lien, the advisor should give the representative the option of recording the release, making the representative aware that if they choose to do so, it is their responsibility to pay the recording fees.

    5.5.8.4.3 (06-23-2005)

    Processing Requests for Discharge of Property from IRC § 6324B Lien, Form 668-H

    1. Requests for discharge of property described on Form 668-H will be processed by Advisory.
    2. A discharge is necessary if part of the property described on the lien is being sold or removed from special use.
    3. If issuance of a conditional commitment to discharge property from the effects of the lien is necessary, Advisory should request a draft of Form 706-A or Form 706-D from each heir who owns a share of the property being sold or removed from special use. Upon review and approval of the draft(s) by the Estate & Gift Tax (E&G) group manager, Advisory will conditionally commit to the discharge. Upon filing of the Form 706-A or Form 706-D, with full payment of any tax and interest due, the discharge certificate will be provided.
    4. See IRM 5.5.8.4.2(4) for instructions on processing the returns and payments.
      Example: A Form 668-H has been recorded in the names of an estate and 4 heirs. The property listed on the lien consists of 6 parcels of real property for which special valuation was elected under IRC § 2032A. The heirs want to convert 1 of the parcels to a non-qualified use and submit an application for discharge under IRC § 6325(b)(2)(A), along with draft copies of each of their required Forms 706-A showing the recapture tax that will be due. E&G reviews the returns and advises that they reflect the correct amount of recapture tax. Advisory issues a commitment to discharge conditioned upon the receipt of original Forms 706-A and payment of the tax and interest due.

    5.5.8.4.4 (03-01-2006)

    Processing Requests for Subordination of IRC § 6324B Lien, Form 668-H

    1. Requests for subordination of property described on Form 668-H will be processed by Advisory.
    2. Although it is possible that the qualified heir(s) may apply for a certificate of subordination under IRC § 6325(d)(2), almost all requests for subordination will be made under IRC § 6325(d)(3) which directly addresses IRC § 6324B, and provides for the issuance of a certificate of subordination if it is determined that the lien interest of the United States will continue to be adequately secured.
    3. Instructions for applying for a subordination under IRC § 6325(d)(3), are contained in Publication 1153, How to Apply for a Certificate of Subordination of Federal Estate Tax Lien Under Section 6325(d)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
    4. If it is determined that the lien interest of the United States will continue to be adequately secured, issue Form 669-F , Certificate of Subordination of Federal Estate Tax Lien.
      Example: A Form 668-H has been recorded in the names of an estate and 2 heirs securing potential recapture tax of $200,000. The property shown on the lien is an apartment building for which special valuation was elected under IRC § 2057. The fair market value of the property is $1.5 million, and it is unencumbered but for the Form 668-H. The heirs want to borrow $250,000 in order to make renovations to the building and use the property as security for the loan. They apply for a subordination under IRC § 6325(d)(3). Since the United States will be adequately secured after the subordination, Advisory may issue Form 669-F.

    5.5.8.5 (06-01-2010)

    Special Lien Under IRC § 6324A for Estate Tax Deferred Under IRC § 6166

    1. IRC § 6166 provides that the executor of an estate may make an election to pay in as many as 10 annual installments, that portion of the estate tax attributable to assets used in a qualifying closely held business. Estate & Gift (E&G) Exam personnel or E&G Campus personnel make the determination if the estate qualifies for this special election. If property qualifies for installments, only interest on the unpaid balance is due on the first four anniversary dates after the due date. The first tax payment along with interest is due on the fifth anniversary of the due date of the return. This election to pay in installments must be made at the time the Form 706 is filed. Late filing of the return invalidates the election. If the deferred tax due is the result of an examination deficiency, the estate must make the election within 60 days after issuance of notice and demand.
    2. Under IRC § 6503(d) the Collection Statute Expiration Date is suspended for the period during which payment of the tax is deferred. However, running of the IRC § 6324(a) estate tax lien is not suspended.
    3. Collection field function will utilize Form 668(Y) when recording liens on balance due accounts. Advisory has the responsibility of securing a lien using Form 668-J, which is typically secured during the installment period.
    4. Key elements of the lien include:
      1. A lien describing the agreed upon property is recorded using Form 668-J, Notice of Federal Estate Tax Lien Under Internal Revenue Laws (see Exhibit 5.5.8-2).
      2. An agreement to the lien under IRC § 6324A is filed with the Internal Revenue Service on Form 13925, IRC Section 6324A Lien Agreement Form. The agreement must be signed by all of the persons having an interest in the designated property (whether or not in possession) described on the lien.
      3. Although real property is preferred, any property, either real or personal, with equity equal to the deferred taxes plus interest, and that can be expected to survive the deferral period, may be designated in the agreement. Property, other than property that was part of the gross estate, may be used to secure the lien. If at any time the value of the property covered by the agreement becomes less than the deferred taxes plus interest, the IRS can require the addition of property to the agreement.

    Note:

    Even though the property offered by the estate as security for the lien may be, if necessary, difficult to enforce against (such as stock in a closely held corporation), distrainability is not a factor in determining the adequacy of the value of the property offered. As long as the requirements under IRC § 6166A(b) as to the value of the property are met, and there are no indications that the property will not survive the deferral period, whatever property the estate offers as security for the lien is acceptable.

      1. Any property that is part of the decedent’s gross estate that is part of the agreement and described on the recorded lien is no longer subject to the unrecorded IRC § 6324(a) estate tax lien.
      2. Recording of the lien acts as a discharge of the executor and/or or fiduciary under IRC § 2204. See Treas. Reg. 20.2204-3.

    5.5.8.5.1 (06-01-2010)

    Advisory Bond/Lien Determinations for Estate Tax Deferred Under IRC § 6166

    1. Advisory will receive a lien package, as described below, and set up an ICS case control.
      1. Pages 1, 2 and 3 of Form 706 and schedules A, B, F & G and any attachments thereto (but not appraisals unless specifically requested by an Advisor) including other pertinent schedules listing assets.
      2. Form 4349, Computation of Estate Tax Due With Return and Annual Installment.
      3. Form 1273, Report of Estate Tax Examination Changes, and Form 3228, Adjustments to Taxable Estate or Form 6180, Line Adjustments – Estate Tax. (These forms will not be provided if the case is surveyed or accepted as filed.)
      4. The examiner’s narrative report of examination changes. (e.g. Form 886A, Explanation of Items, or similar documentation.) (This form will not be provided if the case is surveyed or accepted as filed.)
      5. Any Form 2848, Power of Attorney and Declaration of Representative.
      6. IRC § 6166 election and attachments to the election.
      7. Listing of all businesses listed on the Estate tax return including name and EIN. This information may be listed separately or on the related schedule.
    2. The Estate & Gift (E&G) Exam group will be responsible for sending lien packages to Advisory when the case has been assigned to the group for examination. When returns are accepted as filed or surveyed during classification, Campus will be responsible for preparing and forwarding the lien package to Advisory. E&G Campus will hold the original tax return for 90 days once the lien package is sent to Advisory, in case additional information is needed.
    3. Advisory shall contact the estate’s executor or representative within 60 days of receipt of lien package and request the estate voluntarily provide a bond, or in the alternative an IRC § 6324A lien, to secure the deferred estate tax. If the executor or representative agrees to provide the bond or lien, proceed with processing procedures to get the bond or lien recorded. Send a copy of the lien agreement to E&G Campus for association with the IRC § 6166 file. Encumbrances must be checked to determine adequacy of collateral. The advisor may utilize sources such as Accurint, Secretary of State, UCC filings, etc. to verify encumbrances. It may be necessary to request the estate representative provide encumbrance information. Document the above action in the case history.
    4. If the estate declines to provide a bond or lien, Advisory shall review all information available to it before requesting any information from the taxpayer. Advisory shall review the following:
      1. The lien package provided by E&G Exam,
      2. Any information that the IRS may have such as extension requests (Form 4768), compliance with current installment/interest payments, tax returns or tax compliance information with respect to the decedent (1040), the estate or trust (1041) and closely held business (1040, 1041, 1120, 1120s, 1065, 941’s),
      3. Any information available by public record or on the Internet, such as filings with the Secretary of State.
    5. Advisory will determine what additional information is required to make a determination regarding whether security is required in that case.
    6. Advisory shall send a letter to request any additional information needed to determine whether security should be required. The deadline for additional document request shall be kept to 30 days. If within the 30 day period, the estate requests an extension of time, the Advisor may grant an extension for up to 30 days. Any additional extension must be approved by the Advisory Group Manager. Such approval and the reason for granting the additional extension must be documented in the case history.
    7. Advisory shall determine whether a bond or lien should be required in a case based on a review and analysis of applicable factors listed below and any other pertinent information. This is not an exclusive list and no single factor will be determinative of whether to require security in any particular case.
      1. Duration and stability of the business: This factor considers the nature of the closely held business and of the assets of that business, the relevant market factors that will impact the business’s future success, its recent financial history, and the experience of its management, in an effort to predict likelihood of its success and survival through the deferred payment period. This information may be found in the appraisal, financial statements, and SEC filings. Facts relevant to this factor are information regarding any outstanding liens, judgments, or pending or anticipated lawsuits or other claims against the business, if any; age of business; and continuity and stability of management. The estate may use a sworn affidavit or other probative documents to provide this information. When considering this factor, determine whether the decedent owned a majority interest in the business. If the decedent owned a minority interest, the financial information pertaining to the business may not be as relevant because the estate may not force distributions to pay the estate tax. In this case, consider whether other assets in the estate or other income are available to pay the estate tax.
      2. Ability to pay the installments of tax and interest timely: This factor considers how the estate expects to be able to make the annual payments of tax and interest as due, and the objective likelihood of realizing that expectation. Facts relevant to this factor may include the nature of the business’s significant assets and liabilities, type of debts (subordinated, related party, guaranteed, payment terms), and the business’s cash flow (both historical and anticipated). An appraisal, the business’ tax return, or SEC filings may provide this information.
      3. Compliance history: This factor addresses the business’s, estate’s and decedent’s history regarding compliance with all federal tax payment and tax filing requirements, in an effort to determine whether the business, its management and the executor respect and comply with all tax requirements on a regular basis. The relevance of the closely held business’s filing and payment compliance is proportional to the estate’s ownership interest and control of the business. This factor also addresses the estate’s compliance history with respect to federal tax payment and filing requirements. Review frequency of requests for extension of time to pay, amount, and ultimate payment.
    8. Advisory shall fully document in the case file history:
      1. The factors and information considered in making the determination,
      2. A brief history outlining taxpayer’s response to request for bond or lien, and;
      3. A detailed explanation regarding why a bond or a lien was required in this case in order to protect the government’s interest, and the amount of bond or lien required.
    9. After Advisory has made its determination, Advisory will send the estateLetter 4283, Notification Regarding Internal Revenue Code Section 6166 Security Requirement. When preparing the letter, select the optional paragraph (1) to notify the estate that no bond is required; optional paragraph (2) to notify the estate that a bond is required after reviewing the information provided by the estate; or optional paragraph (3) to notify the estate that a bond is required when the estate did not provide the requested information within 30 days. If option (2) or (3) is selected, include the IRC § 6324A Lien Agreement, Form 13925, and Form 8821. If the estate provides a lien form other than Form 13925, Advisory will consult Area Counsel for the state of the decedent’s domicile for approval of the lien form. If the designated agent on the Form 13295 or lien agreement is someone other than the executor, ensure Form 8821 is received. Fax a copy of the lien agreement and Form 8821, if applicable, to E&G Campus to associate with the file.
    10. Maintain a copy of the Letter 4283 in the case file and schedule a follow up date in ICS.
    11. In the case of any proposed bond, Advisory will consult with Area Counsel for drafting, if needed, and review of the bond agreement.
    12. Area Counsel will also be consulted when unusual assets are pledged on the lien agreement, such as art or collectibles.
    13. The Letter 4283 allows 30 days from the date of the letter to negotiate the bond or lien property. If the estate refuses to provide a bond or lien after Advisory sends Letter 4283 notifying the estate that a bond or lien is required, the Advisor will send the case to the Advisory Group Manager for preparation, selection of the appropriate optional paragraph, and issuance of a Letter 950-I – Preliminary Internal Revenue Code § 6166 Determination Letter. The Letter 950-I is the letter that notifies the estate of its right to appeal the preliminary determination. If the estate does not appeal within the time period, the IRC § 6166 election terminates. Send Letter 950-I by certified mail and maintain one copy in the case file, notating the date it is sent, also schedule a follow up date in ICS.
    14. If decedent died before August 6, 1997, the estate should not be sent the 950-I letter because the estate does not have the right to appeal or go to Tax Court. Provide a narrative to the E&G Campus stating the reason for proposed termination and request the Letter 6335-F be sent.
    15. Advisory will send a copy of the Letter 950-I to E&G Campus to associate with the file.
    16. After the Letter 950-I is issued, the case will be controlled and monitored for expiration of the 30-day period by the Advisory Group Manager.
    17. If within the 30 day period allowed in Letter 950-I the estate requests an extension of time to request Appeals consideration, the Advisory Group Manager may grant an extension for up to 30 days. In unusual cases if circumstances warrant, the Advisory Group Manager may grant an additional extension of time. Such approval and the reason for granting the additional extension must be documented in the case history.
    18. If the estate does not appeal the preliminary determination within the 30-day period allowed in Letter 950-I, or as extended, or if the estate sends an untimely post-marked protest, Advisory shall terminate the election 15 days (to allow for mail time) after the expiration of the 30-day period or the extended period. Advisory must send to the E&G Campus a narrative indicating that the time for appeal has expired and that the account should be accelerated. Advisory shall instruct E&G Campus to send Letter 6335-F to the estate, certified mail, return receipt requested. E&G Campus will compute interest on the Letter 6335-F, 30 days from the date of the Letter 950-I, and will prepare the Letter 6335-F showing the total balance on the account and all additional interest.
    19. If the estate requests Appeals consideration, Advisory will date stamp the protest and document in the case file history that the protest was received and forward the protest letter and the following to Appeals 30 days from the postmark date of the protest letter:
      1. Letter 4283,
      2. Documentation considered in analyzing whether the bond or lien was required,
      3. Letter 950-I,
      4. Case file history, and;
      5. Any pertinent correspondence with the Taxpayer.
    20. If the estate submits a protest containing new IRC § 6166 related issues with its request for Appeals consideration, Advisory shall determine the validity of the new issue. If Advisory disagrees with the estate on the new issue, it shall prepare a response to the protest which includes the determination reached on the new issue. Advisory shall send the response to the protest to the estate and include it in the package to be transmitted to Appeals.
    21. Prepare Form 3210 forwarding case to Appeals notating “Type of Case IRC § 6166 – Termination Case, Lien Determination – This is an emerging issue. Please check the Appeals Technical Guidance issue locator on the Appeals webpage for further information” . Advisory will route their protest cases based on the state in which the decedent was last domiciled using the case routing list on the Appeal’s website, http://appeals.web.irs.gov/APS/bystate2.htm, with the understanding the case may be transferred to another Appeals Officer based on inventory needs. Notify E&G Campus by secure e-mail that a protest has been forwarded to Appeals so that the Letter 6335-F is not sent prematurely.
    22. If no new issues are raised by the estate in its request for Appeals consideration, Advisory will not prepare a response to the protest. Appeals will consider the documentation in the case file history containing all prior analysis.
    23. The Appeals Office will send the case file with the Appeals Case Memorandum (ACM) to Advisory once a decision is final, so that Advisory can proceed. Advisory shall notify E&G Campus if the election under IRC § 6166 is terminated, and shall instruct E&G Campus to send Letter 6335-F certified mail, return receipt requested. If Appeals allows the election to continue, notify E&G Campus that Appeals has determined the estate is entitled to the election. If no response is received, Advisory will follow-up with Appeals in 90 days. Advisory may contact the Appeals’ Account Resolution Specialist at (559) 456-5931 to locate case or update status.

    5.5.8.5.2 (06-01-2010)

    Miscellaneous Documentation From Campus or Appeals

    1. Advisory will receive documentation from E&G Campus concerning IRC § 6166 payments or installment payments that have not been paid. E&G Campus is sending this information to be associated with the case file. E&G Campus will forward for informational purposes copies of billings and/or protest letters that are sent to Appeals. OI’s will be maintained in ICS on accounts where informational documents are sent to Advisory from the E&G Campus.
    2. This information should be used in considering creditworthiness of estate, necessity for a bond or lien, and/or necessary enforcement action.
    3. Advisory may receive a courtesy investigation from the E&G Campus to collect non-deferred tax, penalties and interest. The following actions should be taken:
      1. Contact the estate representative and demand payment of the non-deferred tax. Provide a deadline for payment and document the ICS history.
      2. If payment is not made send final demand letter (Letter 1058) for only the non-deferred portion of tax due plus penalties and interest.
      3. After expiration of the 30 day final demand letter the advisor will issue a courtesy investigation to initiate enforced collection (such as levy or suit referral) as necessary against assets or initiate such action themselves, as appropriate. The Advisor will coordinate collection action with the revenue officer involved.
      4. If full payment is still not made, the IRC § 6321 lien should be recorded by the field revenue officer to attach to the remaining undistributed probate property for the non-deferred portion of the estate tax due. Document the ICS history concerning your action to protect the Government’s interest. Revenue Officers must comply with collection due process rights in IRM 5.1.9.3 when utilizing the IRC § 6321 lien.
      5. If estate is unable to pay the non-deferred tax this is an indicator/factor that the estate may be financially unstable. At this time the advisor will conduct an evaluation of the current assets, review time remaining on the IRC § 6324(a) lien (or any other lien in effect such as the IRC § 6324A lien) and determine if the Government is adequately secured for the remaining tax due during the duration of the deferral period.
      6. If the advisor determines the Government is not adequately secured for the remaining portion of deferred estate tax, Letter 4283 will be sent to the executor/designated agent. Follow procedures in IRM 5.5.8.5.1(9).
      7. If estate still does not pay non-deferred portion of tax and refuses to provide a lien or bond on the IRC § 6166 portion, issue letter 950-I and proceed with acceleration of the deferred portion of tax.
      8. Revenue Officers may continue collection actions on the non-deferred portion of estate tax while the deferred portion is being accelerated.
    4. Advisory will also receive documentation (copies of Letter 6335 or 6335(T)) from the E&G Campus when estates are delinquent in paying installments timely, Advisory should review the account to determine if a lien or bond has been secured. If a lien or bond has not been secured a re-evaluation of collection risk is appropriate action to ensure the Government is adequately protected. This information and advisor actions must be documented in the ICS history because a pattern of delinquency is a factor in determining credit risk.
    5. Advisory will receive from the E&G Campus documentation (copies of Letter 6335(F)) indicating installment payments have not been made and the acceleration of the tax due is in process. Advisory must upon receipt review the account and determine if a lien or bond has been secured. Advisory should review, recommend and document the ICS history regarding the most appropriate collection action based on information in their lien file. Considerations to be addressed:
      1. what assets remain that are encumbered by the IRC § 6324(a) lien
      2. are there specific assets pledged on the IRC § 6324A lien,
      3. equity in assets
      4. is there a bond,
      5. does a seizure or levy need to be done on pledged assets, and
      6. should a suit referral be completed.
    6. Advisory shall take such action or coordinate enforced collection action.
    7. Advisory will receive from the E&G Campus documentation indicating the case is in litigation contesting the termination of the election. The collection statute is not suspended during the time the case is in litigation. Advisory should determine based on the facts and circumstances of the case whether collection should be pursued during litigation and handle the case accordingly. If Advisory determines collection should be pursued during litigation, before collecting Advisory must contact the Chief Counsel attorney assigned to the case.
    8. When Appeals makes a determination that an estate may continue to elect an IRC § 6166 installment election, the entire case file, including the original return shall be sent to Advisory to copy information necessary for bond or lien determination. This file should be copied within 30 days, and the return should be sent to E&G Campus to complete the installment account set-up.
    9. Advisory will be responsible to set follow-ups through ICS to check status of cases that were sent to Appeals for resolution either by utilizing the Appeals Account Specialist or contacting the E&G Campus to determine if they have received the Appeals Case Memorandum (ACM) from Appeals.

    5.5.8.5.3 (06-01-2010)

    Monitoring Accounts During The Deferral Period (Advisory)

    1. Informational documents received from the E&G Campus should be reviewed within 30 days of receipt. The advisor’s evaluation of impact or harm to the Government’s interest should be documented in the ICS history. This documentation may dictate frequency of monitoring an account.
    2. Notice of late installment payments, preliminary IRC § 6166 election terminations or extensions to pay on IRC § 6166 installment payments should be considered as a factor in lien determination and monitoring. Accounts should be re-evaluated if any of the above actions occur.
    3. Encumbrances must be checked to determine adequacy of collateral. The advisor may utilize sources such as Accurint, Secretary of State, UCC filings, etc. to verify encumbrances.
    4. (4) All IRC § 6166 accounts will be re-evaluated six years into the deferral period. Schedule a follow up through the ICS system. Advisors will consider the factors described in IRM 5.5.8.5.1(7) and should also look at subsequent actions below to determine if additional action should be taken to protect the Government’s interest:
      1. What assets have been distributed?
      2. Has the estate distributed, sold, exchanged, or otherwise disposed of 50 percent or more of the value of the estate’s interest in the closely held business?
      3. What assets have been discharged or subordinated?
      4. Has the estate made installment payments timely and in the full amount due?
      5. Has the estate requested extensions to pay installments?
      6. Has the estate defaulted on other financing?
      7. Has the estate made additional payments toward the tax liability?
      8. Does the closely held business appear to be financially stable and able to make future installment payments?
      9. Is the estate in compliance with filing and paying requirements?
    5. Annual monitoring, considering the above factors should be conducted as the Service nears expiration of the IRC § 6324(a) lien. Each year that Advisory conducts a review, the Advisor must document their analysis and recommendations to adequately protect the Government’s interest. As the Service gets closer to expiration of the IRC § 6324(a) lien, the advisor must consider securing a “replacement lien” (IRC § 6324A lien or bond) to cover the additional deferral period and the amount of deferred tax due in order to protect the Government’s interest.
    6. Advisory must be aware that if a determination is made that the Government is at risk of not collecting the remaining tax due, appropriate action (for example, a bond or lien or enforced collection action) must be taken and completed prior to expiration of the IRC § 6324(a) lien. Consideration must be given to allow time for the executor to exhaust any allowable appeals and potential litigation time if the estate petitions the Tax Court under IRC § 7479. If the account is accelerated, this process generally requires a minimum of six months to be completed. Timeframes of acceleration, appeals and litigation must be considered in order to complete collection actions prior to expiration of the IRC § 6324(a) lien.
    7. If the advisor determines that a lien is required the advisor will send the executor Letter 4283. Follow procedures in IRM 5.5.8.5.1(9) .
    8. In consideration of accounts where the estate has been in compliance with timely payment of installments, as the Service gets closer to expiration of the IRC § 6324(a) lien, the advisor must consider securing a “replacement lien” (IRC § 6324A lien or bond) to cover the additional deferral period and the amount of deferred tax due in order to protect the Government’s interest.
    9. Advisory must ensure annually that the value of the collateral securing the lien is equal to the outstanding IRC § 6166 balance on the account. In accordance with the Form 13925, the designated agent is required to send current valuation information annually with respect to the pledged property listed in the agreement. If the executor has provided an IRC § 6324A lien, Advisory must review the annual valuation information report from the designated agent to confirm that the value of the collateral securing the lien is equal to the outstanding IRC § 6166 balance on the account. If the financial information is not received from the designated agent, the Advisor may contact the designated agent to request that information.

    5.5.8.5.4 (06-01-2010)

    Processing of IRC § 6324A Form 668-J (Advisory Actions)

    1. Follow the procedures found at IRM 5.5.8.4.1 for recording of estate tax liens.
    2. When preparing estate tax liens, the SSN of the decedent and any qualified heirs whose names are shown on the lien will be redacted using the format XXX-XX-1234. Do not redact EINs.
    3. Actual lien fees will be manually posted by CLU FORT when the lien is received back from the recording office, see IRM 5.19.12.10.2 .
    4. Advisors are responsible for ensuring receipt of the recorded lien from CLU and that lien fees have been input, if applicable.
    5. Advisory will maintain an ICS case in the name of the estate for which the Form 668-J was recorded until such time as the lien is released. Advisory will also maintain a file of retained lien copies and associated documentation.
    6. The Cincinnati Campus Estate & Gift Tax Department, will, upon receipt of full payment of the liability secured by Form 668-J, coordinate with the Advisory Estate Tax Group to ensure that the 668-J lien is released in a timely manner. Campus will notify the Advisory, Estate Tax Group within 10 working days after receiving notification of payment, through secure e-mail, to release any Form 668-J that may have been recorded.
    7. Form 669-J must be prepared manually. However, a PDF version of the form is available on the intranet at http://publish.no.irs.gov/catlg.html.
    8. If the estate representative chooses to post a bond rather than consent to the recording of a lien, follow the procedures for processing bonds found at IRM 5.6.1.2.1, Bonds and IRM 5.6.1.2.3, Estate Tax Bonds and Other Collateral.
    9. If stock certificates are pledged as collateral, the advisor will secure the actual stock certificate. This would prevent the sale of such certificates to third parties.
    10. Prepare Form 2276, Collateral Deposit Record classifying the stock certificates as ″safekeeping″ and reflecting a zero value for revenue accounting system (RACS) purposes. The certificates must be stored in an approved safe. Follow procedures in IRM 5.6.1.8, Preparing Form 2276, Collateral Deposit Record.
    11. Stock, in most instances, will be considered personal property by most state law. With respect to personal property, a lien must be filed in the office designated by state law in which the property subject to the lien is situated.

    5.5.8.5.5 (03-01-2006)

    Processing Requests for Release, Discharge of Property From, or Subordination of IRC § 6324A Form 668-J

    1. Requests for release of Form 668-J, and discharge and subordination applications will be processed by Advisory.
    2. Releases– The criteria under IRC § 6325(a) for issuance of a certificate of lien release – liability satisfied or unenforceable or bond accepted – are applicable to Form 668-J. Follow the procedures found at IRM 5.5.8.4.2 for processing estate tax lien releases.
    3. Discharge – Requests for discharge will normally be made under IRC § 6325(c). Provided property equal to the amount of the remaining deferred balance of tax and interest will remain subject to the lien, a certificate may be issued discharging a portion of the property listed on Form 668-J from the lien. As an alternative, under IRC § 6324A(d)(5), the estate representatives may substitute other property in order to obtain a discharge of all or part of the property listed on the lien. If the disposition of property will result in accelerated payment of all or part of the deferred tax, or if the equity in the remaining property will not equal the remaining deferred balance of tax and interest, the application should be made under IRC § 6325(b)(2).
    4. Subordination – Requests for subordination will normally be made under IRC § 6325(d)(2). Provided it is determined that the amount realizable by the United States from the property will ultimately be increased, or that the ultimate collection of the tax liability will be facilitated by the subordination, a certificate may be issued.

    5.5.8.6 (06-23-2005)

    Gift Tax Lien Under IRC § 6324(b)

    1. The provisions of the gift tax lien are also delineated in IRC § 6324 and parallel those for the general estate tax lien.
    2. The special gift tax lien imposed by IRC § 6324(b) attaches to all gifts made during the calendar year for the amount of the gift tax imposed upon the gifts made during such year. If the gift tax is not paid by the donor when due, the donee of any gift becomes personally liable for the tax to the extent of the value of the gift. The gift tax lien extends for a period of ten years from the time the gifts were made or until or the tax is paid, whichever date is sooner.

    Exhibit 5.5.8-1

    Form 668-H, Notice of Federal Estate Tax Lien Under Internal Revenue Laws


  • SMP Update Thank you for your comments

    Dec 10, 2017, Many SMP Update public comments of concern have been lost in the arbitrary DCD cut off dates shuffle.

    To insure that these public concerns shall be considered  by the Clallam County BOCC

    I am resubmitting  29 questions and comments for documentation of PUBLIC CONCERN on the Clallam County SMP update from just one Public Forum July 14, 2011

    Unfortunately, many of these public concerns are still valid on  Dec 10, 2017

    SPECIFIC CONCERN  July 14, 2011 and Dec 10, 2017

    1. Competency and reliability of ESA reports on, inventories, flood plains, critical areas, buffers and setbacks?
    2. Will owners of the property be required, at their own expense, to prove the ESA data is inaccurate? when ESA has a disclaimer on the maps and “May be up to 100 feet off”?

    Actual SMP map disclaimer ESA states:

    Map data shown here are property of the listed sources, inaccuracies may exist, and ESA implies no warranties or guarantees regarding any aspect of data depiction.

    Answer, Yes, property owner will have to disprove inaccurate data at their own expense.

    And…. 12. An additional question on property will be required, at their own expense? to prove the ESA Map data is inaccurate?

    —————————————–

    IF YOU ARE  CONCERNED ABOUT THE SMP UPDATE  THERE IS STILL TIME TO SEND YOUR COMMENTS TO THE BOCC smp@co.clallam.wa.us

    ——————————————————————

    Back in the day, we received email notification…

    AND THEY SAID….

    Thank you for your comments.

    These will be considered and included in the SMP comment file, as per requirements.

    Hannah Merrill

    DCD Natural Resources Planner
    Clallam County Dept. of Community Development
    223 East 4th Street, Suite 5; Port Angeles, WA  98362-3015
    T:  360-417-2563  W:  http://www.clallam.net/RealEstate/html/shoreline_management.htm

    —————————————————————————

    You have received this message as a member of the Clallam County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Interested Parties Email Distribution List.    All emails sent to this address will be received by the Clallam County email system and may be subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW and as such may be viewed by parties other than the intended recipient.

    From: pearl hewett [mailto:phew@wavecable.com]
    Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2011 9:24 AM
    To: zSMP
    Cc: earnest spees; Jo Anne Estes
    Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT REPORT ON SMP Public Forum July 14, 2011

    I submit this documentation of PUBLIC CONCERNS on the Clallam County SMP update.

    As a  general public Comment

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Trustee George C. Rains Sr. Estate

    Invited SMP Citizens Advisory Committee Member

    Thursday:  July 14, 2011 – SMP Public Forum, John Wayne Marina, 2577 West Sequim Bay Road, Sequim, 1:00-3:30 p.m.

    With about 35 people in attendance The following questions were asked of Department of Community Development Steve Grey, Consultant Jim Kramer and ESA Nathan.

    1. The purpose for the Shoreline inventory and characteristic report is?
    2. The purpose for the SMP update is?
    3. Mandate deadline for SMP update ?
    4. What is the 200 foot set back?

    Answer, the 200 foot set back is WA State law, development can occur within the 200 foot set back, with special permitting.

    1. City, County SMP compliancy who’s jurisdiction?
    2. Request for slides of maps?
    3. Where to send written comments?
    4. Competency and reliability of ESA reports on, inventories, flood plains, critical areas, buffers and setbacks?
    5. Will owners of the property be required, at their own expense, to prove the ESA data is inaccurate? when ESA has a disclaimer on the maps and “May be up to 100 feet off”?

    Actual SMP map disclaimer ESA states:

    Map data shown here are property of the listed sources, inaccuracies may exist, and ESA implies no warranties or guarantees regarding any aspect of data depiction.

    Answer, Yes, property owner will have to disprove inaccurate data at their own expense.

    1. What is the concept of law, regarding “NO NET LOSS?”
    2. Is the shoreline inventory and characteristic report to determine the base line for loss and consequences with regard to “NO NET LOSS?
    3. An additional question on property will be required, at their own expense? to prove the ESA Map data is inaccurate?
    4. Comment, SPM, good information, good access and good to have public involvement at meetings.
    5. Many web sites, which one do I use?
    6. Development, with regard to loss of wildlife habitat?
    7. Do you use any of the things learned by Jefferson County SMP guidelines? Reports related to It created levels of public anxiety?
    8. Will Clallam County just rubber stamp other SMP’s information and just do it any way?
    9. Is the SMP udate just cut and dried?
    10. Will we have input, considering that the impaired water quality on the lower Dungeness has been proven to be 75% bird poop and 25% people related?

    Answer, we can’t control the birds and can just focus on what can be controlled.

    As, Pearl Rains Hewett  I had a problem being recognized by Steve Grey and Jim Kramer to be allowed to speak.

    It was not mentioned that I was a member of the Invited SMP update committee.

    I made (2) comments and asked (1) question during the 2 1/2 hour meeting.

    My comment, Per HB 1478 after receiving a grant for the SMP, a county has 2 years to complete their update.

    My comment, shrinking open space habitat has forced animals to use freshwater reaches for travel, causing further non- people related impairment of water quality.

    1. My question, How is permitting usage done on the 200′ set back required by WA State law? By the County? Shoreline exemption Permit? Or running the full gauntlet with the DOE?

    21.Questioning the validity of the predicted 18,000 increase in population growth?

    1. How does the SMP setback affect our out buildings? rebuild, improve, maintenance?

    Answer, non-conforming improve, maintenance, no problem. If over 50% of a non-conforming structure burns down, no rebuilding is permitted.

    1. Does the same apply to bulkheads?

    Answer, maintain, repair ok, but eventually DOE wants all removed. There is protection for single family dwellings. The DOE wants soft bulkheads.

    1. Where do you expect the population increase?
    2. Flexibility of shellfish protection, shoreline uses, setbacks?
    3. How will the merging of the Shoreline inventory and Characteristics with zoning be handled?

    Answer, fairly, East to West. Forest land is not the same as conservative.

    1. Suspicious of DOE/ SMP pattern of control, start with minimum impact, go to NO NET LOSS, go to enhance, end up with restoration?

    Answer, our duty is to protect, restoration is not required by law.

    1. “IF NOT YET? Then when?

    Answer, Priorities for restoration, Elwha, remove homes, Success of restoration of Jimmy Come Lately Creek, Elwha move levees back.

    1. Comment and Question, only a 200 foot set back? Shouldn’t it be more like 300 feet?

    Answer, Sometimes it is, take the flood plain add the wet land and it can be more.

    The questions are for documentation of PUBLIC CONCERN on the SMP update.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Trustee George C. Rains Sr. Estate

    Invited SMP Citizens Advisory Committee Member

    ————————————————————–

     

    DEC 10, 2017 SPECIFICALLY THANK YOU SMP COMMITTEE

    Thank you for your comments.

    MERRY CHRISTMAS

    These will be considered and included in the SMP comment file, as per requirements. (NOT)

     SMP Committee – Clallam County, Washington

    www.clallam.net/LandUse/smp_advcomm.html

    THANK YOU SMP COMMITTEE FOR YOUR TIME, … Clallam County SMP Update: … Welcome Letter; Meeting Agenda – April 11, …

    Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Committee

    THANK YOU SMP COMMITTEE

    FOR YOUR TIME, DEDICATION And

    ATTENTION TO DETAIL,

    COMPREHENSIVE COMMENTS,

    EXTRAORDINARY EFFORTS,

    EXTENSIVE INPUT,

    and HARD WORK!

    SMP Update  the so called Citizens Advisory Committee  Welcome Letter


  • Update: Interest in the Elwha Project Lands

    OCT 27, 2017  Future interest by the WA State in Elwha Project Lands?

    AUG 10, 2012 PAST INTEREST IN ELWHA PROJECT LANDS

     1992 THE ELWHA ACT, PASSED BY CONGRESS

    THE FEDERAL LAW  IS…. THE SO-CALLED PROJECT LANDS WERE SET ASIDE, “ACCORDING” TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ELWHA ACT, PASSED BY CONGRESS IN 1992.

    AFTER THE BIG DAM REMOVAL.. THE FEDS ELECTED, BUREAUCRATS AND THE TRIBES RAN INTO A LEGAL CONUNDRUM.

    AUG 10, 2012 THE AGENCY THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE WAS AWARE THE TRIBE WANTS THE SO-CALLED PROJECT LANDS

    THE CONUNDRUM WAS SPECIFICALLY, WHO WERE THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS IN CLALLAM COUNTRY WA  LEGALLY, SET ASIDE FOR BY CONGRESS IN THE 1992 ELWHA ACT?

    WHY SHOULD  OUR FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES BE BOTHERED WITH  LEGISLATIVE ACTION BY RULE OF LAW?

    WHEN THE LEGAL ISSUES ON THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS COULD BE RESOLVED BY BUREAUCRATIC RULE BY RED TAPE?

    THERE WERE SEVERAL UNDISCLOSED LEGAL ISSUES WHEN THE ELECTED FEDS, NPS BUREAUCRATS AND THE TRIBES, WANTED TO JUST RUN IN AND GRAB THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS PUBLIC LAND……

     ——————————————————————————–

     SO, THE SOLUTION  TO THE LEGAL CONUNDRUM ON AUG 10, 2012 WAS THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (BUREAUCRATS) INTENDS TO LAUNCH A PUBLIC (DUE) PROCESS TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS

    ——————————————————————————–

    OCT 27, 2017  SO?  WDFW (BUREAUCRATS) released its findings (so far) to the Fish Commission  (BUREAUCRATS) SO WE ARE WAITING FOR WA STATE TO CONSIDER THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS

    ———————————————————–

    THE WAITING GAME INDEED,  WAITING FOR THE  LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS

    THE ELWHA RIVER ACT 1992, 2011 SMP, 2012 NPS, 2013 DOE SMP,  2017 WDFW AND THE FISH COMMISSON.

    NO WORRIES…. The Waiting Game is a common practice of government and bureaucrats, just wait until citizens give up or forget….

    INDEED, THE  LONG WAITING  FOR THE BUREAUCRATS TO RULE OCT 27, 2017  .

    ———————————————————————-

    AUG 10, 2012 THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE INTENDS TO LAUNCH A PUBLIC PROCESS TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE LAND,

    BUT AT THE MOMENT HAS NO FUNDING TO PAY FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OR ENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACT STATEMENT,

    NOTED  BY TODD SUESS, AUGUST 10, 2012 ACTING SUPERINTENDENT FOR OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK.

    THE AGENCY IS AWARE THE TRIBE WANTS THE LAND, BUT CAN’T JUST TURN IT OVER. “WE NEED TO HAVE A PUBLIC PROCESS,” SUESS SAID.

    —————————————————————————

    We citizens should be used to it “The Waiting Game”  is common practice for the tired, overwhelmed Citizens of Clallam County  

    WELL, I GUESS WE WILL JUST HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS….TO  THE WA STATE  ELWHA PROJECT LANDS DURING THIS PUBLIC PROCESS BY BUREAUCRATS

    TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE CLALLAM COUNTY WA PUBLIC LAND BY WA STATE BUREAUCRATS

    ————————————————————————

    BUT NOT ON MY WATCH  SEPT 30, 2013

    Behind My Back | The NPS Waiting Game

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/09/30/the-nps-waiting-game/

    A common practice of government waiting…… waiting until NPS willful neglect allows, nature to ravage the roads, the trail, the access, NPS WAITING FOR the .. the snow to collapse the resorts, lodges, cabins, NPS just WAITING… until  those with living memory of a place die off, just WAITING… wait until the people cool off or wait until people forget, out of sight out of mind….

    My SMP Update comment on WA State DOE SMP Priority of public access to public land
    and as referenced in the WA State Public Trust Doctrine
    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Elwha River public lands (between US 101 and SR 112)
    Clallam County Public Land
    NORM’S RESORT NPS Public Land
    ———————————————————————————

    NORM’S RESORT  who’s Norm? what’s he got to do with it?

    The Norm’s privately owned resort, in 1979, provided “we the people” free public access with a long dirt trail for free walking beside the ELWHA RIVER and the use of the ELWHA RIVER FOR A FREE FISHING SPOTS AND IT DIDN’T STOP THERE, IT PROVIDED A STORE, CABINS, RENTAL BOATS.

    What happened to NORM’S RESORT free facilities?

    NORM’S RESORT was demolished by the federal government.

    NORM’S RESORT PRIVATE ELWHA RIVER property is now OUR PUBLIC LAND controlled by the NPS AND there is EVEN more Clallam County PUBLIC LAND on the Elwha River between US 101 and SR 112 that IS UP FOR GRABS.

    There is a county road for the main purpose of access to this area and a WDFW boat launch high and dry….

    2013- IT HAS EVEN BEEN SUGGESTED THAT THE CLALLAM COUNTY’S PUBLIC LAND BE GIVEN TO THE TRIBES?

    As a Community we should insist that the public Elwha River property (between US 101 and SR 112 public land) –

    BE GIVEN FIRST PRIORTY FOR PUBLIC ACCESS AND PUBLIC USE.

    ——————————————————————————-

    In accordance with the DOE and the requirements for PUBLIC ACCESS TO PUBLIC LAND as stated in THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE.

    ————————————————————————————-

    APRIL 4, 2017 (I did this)

    ·  Behind My Back | The Elwha River Limbo Land

    www.behindmyback.org/2017/04/04/6477

    Posted on April 4, 2017 6:46 am by Pearl Rains Hewett

    The Elwha River Limbo Land SOME 1,100 ACRES OF LAND WITH AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE? ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED AUGUST 10, 2012 By Lynda V. Mapes Seattle Times staff reporter WHAT …

    ————————————————————————-

    MY Category Archives  A CITIZEN EXPRESSING INTEREST

    ·  Behind My Back | A CITIZEN EXPRESSING INTEREST

    www.behindmyback.org/category/a-citizen-expressing-interest The Elwha River Limbo Land. SOME 1,100 ACRES OF LAND WITH AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE? ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED AUGUST 10, 2012 By Lynda V. Mapes Seattle Times staff reporter

    WHAT WILL BECOME OF “THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS”?

     THAT USED TO BE UNDER THE ELWHA DAM AND LAKE ALDWELL?

    THEY WERE TO BE SET ASIDE FOR USE, AS, BY ELIGIBLE PARTY’S?

    THAT IS THE SO-CALLED PROJECT LANDS WERE SET ASIDE, “ACCORDING” TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ELWHA ACT, PASSED BY CONGRESS IN 1992.

    WERE THEY FACTUALLY?  SPECIFICALLY? SET ASIDE BY CONGRESS IN THE 1992 ELWHA ACT??

    WHY IS CLALLAM COUNTY WA NOT LISTED AS AN ELIGIBLE PARTY FOR A CLALLAM COUNTY RECREATIONAL AREA?

    WHEN CONGRESS AUTHORIZED REMOVAL OF THE DAM SOUTHWEST OF PORT ANGELES IN 1992, THE SO-CALLED PROJECT LANDS WERE TO BE SET ASIDE EITHER FOR USE AS

    1. A STATE PARK,
    2. A NATIONAL PARK OR
    3. A NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, OR
    4. BE TRANSFERRED TO THE LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE.

    SO FAR, THE TRIBE IS THE ONLY ELIGIBLE PARTY THAT HAS A PLAN AND A DESIRE FOR THE LAND.

    AUGUST 10, 2012 THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE INTENDS TO LAUNCH A PUBLIC PROCESS TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE LAND, BUT AT THE MOMENT HAS NO FUNDING TO PAY FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OR ENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACT STATEMENT, NOTED TODD SUESS, ACTING SUPERINTENDENT FOR OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK.

    THE AGENCY IS AWARE THE TRIBE WANTS THE LAND, BUT CAN’T JUST TURN IT OVER. “WE NEED TO HAVE A PUBLIC PROCESS,” SUESS SAID.

     ———————————————————————–

    WHAT WILL BECOME OF “THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS”? THAT USED TO BE UNDER THE ELWHA DAM AND LAKE ALDWELL?

     WELL, I GUESS WE WILL JUST HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS….

    TO  THE WA STATE  ELWHA RIVER PROJECT LANDS DURING THIS  PUBLIC PROCESS BY BUREAUCRATS  TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF OUR CLALLAM COUNTY PUBLIC LAND BY WA STATE BUREAUCRATS

    ——————————————————-

    The bottom line

    Oct 29, 2017 WHAT AM I GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

    CROSS MY FINGERS?

    NOPE,  THE USUAL…

    ————————————————————————-

    —– Original Message —–

    From: xxx

    To: Pearl Hewett

    Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 3:14 PM

    Subject: Future interest by the State in Elwha Project Lands

    Future interest by the State in Elwha Project Lands, WDFW released its findings (so far) to the Fish Commission.  Listen in at:

    https://www.tvw.org/watch/?eventID=2017101082

    watch – TVW, Washington States' Public Affairs Network

    www.tvw.org

     

    and making it easy for you, time stamp starts at 1:50:17 and goes through to 1:52:12.  Less than two minutes of one’s life and one shale know as much as I do.

    Without getting hopes up, opinion is there’s a bit of hope WDFW is seriously going to address this, at least make recommendations for the State to consider.


  • Clallam County WA SMP Update 2017?

    Clallam County WA SMP Update 2017?

    I received email notification because I am an interested party (since Jan 26, 2011).  The County Department of Community Development (DCD) has just released a Revised SMP Draft (June 2017).

    Clallam County Commissioners, Mark Ozias, Randy Johnson and Bill Peach, You are receiving this email because you are elected Clallam County representatives and you SHALL be deciding the fate of vested, voting, taxpaying, Shoreline private property owners on the Clallam County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update.

    Not one of you, the 2017 seated elected representative participated in the Clallam County SMP Update between 2009 and 2013.

    How bad was the Clallam County WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (DOE) SMP Update in 2009? 2010? 2011? 2012? 2013? 2014? and 2015? 2016?

    CONTENTIOUS…. OVER 600  PUBLIC COMMENTS WERE SUBMITTED.

    WHAT WOULD VESTED PRIVATE SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT?

    LET’S START WITH THE CLALLAM COUNTY  DCD SMP REVISED REVISIONS

    2014-2017

    The Revised Draft SMP (June 2017) shows proposed revisions to the November 2014 Draft SMP that the Clallam County Planning Commission held regional public hearings on in February 2015. The Planning Commission reviewed public comments at various Commission regular-meetings in 2015-2016. The Revised Draft SMP (June 2017) is based on these deliberations, comments from the Department of Ecology, and other clarifications/corrections.

    ————————————————————————————-

    A complete list of Clallam County DOE SMP UPDATE PUBLIC  comments 2010-2012

    doe smp public smp comments from 5/31/11 #100 to 7/02/12 #284

    citizenreview-clallamcounty.org/…/doe-smp-public-smp-comments-from-53111-100-to-…Jul 3, 2012TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN. A COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP COMMENTS 2010-2012.

    The SMP ball is soon to be thrown into the your court, it’s time for you, the newly elected on the block to step up to the plate.

    PLEASE SEND YOUR COMPLAINTS TO our elected commissioners they need to know how the 2017 Revised SMP Draft and update has and shall  impacted  you and your property. Below is their contact information:

    ——————————————————————————

    Indeed, elected in 2014, DCD Director Mary Ellen Winborn,. The Clallam County Department of Community Development is responsible for comprehensive …

    Director of Community Development

    Mary Ellen Winborn
    mwinborn@co.clallam.wa.us
    223 East 4th Street, Suite 5
    Port Angeles Washington 98362
    360-417-2321

    ——————————————————————————–

    Behind My Back | WA DOE Amending the SMA/SMP?

    www.behindmyback.org/2017/03/03/wa-doe-amending-the-smasmp/

    Mar 3, 2017 – Behind My Back | Ecology’s Back “Amended Plus ” SMP WAC’S … Shoreline Management | Introduction the the SMA | Washington State …

    This is my public comment on the Clallam County SMP Update

    It is a formal written complaint directed to Elected DCD Director Mary Ellen Winborn

    The Clallam County SMP Update has been a work in progress for over seven (7) years

    The first Public comment on the SMP Update, was Dec 5, 2009

    The latest update on the Clallam County SMP website is from November 2014

    AND THE STATUS OF CLALLAM COUNTY  SMP  MARCH 3, 2017?

    Clallam County Southwest Under way

    How bad was the Clallam County WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (DOE) SMP Update in 2009? 2010?2011? 2012? 2o13? 2014? and 2015? 2016?

    CONTENTIOUS…. Over 600  public comments were submitted.

    The  “LAST” PUBLIC FORUM” was held Jan 14, 2015  in Sequim WA

    The latest update on the Clallam County SMP website is from November 2014

    Only one, non-elected county employee has been involved in the SMP Update from start to finish.

    Who’s running the SMP Update behind our backs behind closed doors

    How much Funding has been granted to Clallam County by the DOE $549,986.00

    Who’s being paid behind our backs behind closed doors to Update the Clallam County Shoreline SMP?

    HAVE THE VESTED SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNING CITIZENS OF CLALLAM COUNTY BEEN LEFT OUT OF THE PUBLIC OPEN MEETING PROCESS FOR A  “COOLING OFF PERIOD?”

    WHAT WOULD VESTED PRIVATE SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT?

     

    The Revised Draft SMP (June 2017) shows proposed revisions to the November 2014 Draft SMP that the Clallam County Planning Commission held regional public hearings on in February 2015. The Planning Commission reviewed public comments at various Commission regular-meetings in 2015-2016. The Revised Draft SMP (June 2017) is based on these deliberations, comments from the Department of Ecology, and other clarifications/corrections.

    PLEASE SEND YOU COMPLAINTS TO our elected commissioners they need to know the impacts that this 2017 Revised SMP Draft and update has and shall have on you and your property.

    Contact information:

    County Commissioners

    Mark Ozias, District 1
    mozias@co.clallam.wa.us
    Clallam County Commissioners
    223 East 4th Street, Suite 4
    Port Angeles, Washington 98362-3000
    360-417-2233

    Randy Johnson, District 2
    rjohnson@co.clallam.wa.us
    Clallam County Commissioners
    223 East 4th Street, Suite 4
    Port Angeles, Washington 98362-3000
    360-417-2233

    Bill Peach, District 3
    bpeach@co.clallam.wa.us
    Clallam County Commissioners
    223 East 4th Street, Suite 4
    Port Angeles, Washington 98362-3000
    360-417-2233

    Not one of the 2017 seated elected representative participated in the Clallam County SMP Update between 2009 and 2013.

    How many of the 624 SMP  public comments have Clallam County Commissioner Mark Ozias, Randy Johnson and Bill Peach actually read?

    And, how many of the 624 SMP Public comments have been shoved under the rug, through the combined efforts of ESAAdolfson  SMP Consultant Margaret Clancy (between 2012 and 2017)  and Steve Gray, Deputy Director/Planning Manager Clallam County Dept. of Community Development using after the fact cut off dates for public comment et al,  and  a matrix system?

    ——————————————————————————–

    Not one of you, the 2017 seated elected commissioners, participated in the Clallam County SMP Update between 2009 and 2013.

    The SMP ball is soon to be thrown into the your court, it’s time for you, the newly elected, on the block, to step up to the plate.

    doe smp public smp comments from 5/31/11 #100 to 7/02/12 #284

    citizenreview-clallamcounty.org/…/doe-smp-public-smp-comments-from-53111-100-to-…

    Jul 3, 2012 – TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN. A COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP COMMENTS 2010-2012. Available on Clallam County …

    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

    A COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP COMMENTS 2010-2012

    Available on Clallam County SMP website.

    http://www.clallam.net/realestate/html/shoreline_management.htm

    All public comments are subject to Public Disclosure.

    I will complete the comments on #1 to #99 and document the pros and cons.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    July:
    ·    070212 – RKonopaski – G
    ·    #284 clarifying the setbacks on marine shorelines?
    June:
    ·    062312 – ESpees – G
    ·    175-150 + 10 foot setbacks
    ·    061712 – PHewett – G
    ·    DOE private meeting
    ·    061412 – PHewett – G
    ·    Futurewise and Grays Harbor
    ·    061412 – PHewett – SED
    ·    WHAT IS THE ECONOMIC FUTURE OF CLALLAM COUNTY?
    ·    061112 – PHewett – G
    ·    See Nollan, 483 U.S. 825, 837 (1987). precautionary setbacks
    ·    060912 – PHewett – G
    ·    25 See Nollan, 483 U.S. 825, 837 (1987).
    ·    060712 – PHewett – G
    ·    #277 Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights v. Sims. 65% taking violates law
    ·    060312 – ESpees – G
    ·    #276 public access to our shorelines
    May:
    ·    053012 – PHewett – SED
    ·    #275 RE-DESIGNATE TO FRESHWATER RURAL
    ·    052912 – PHewett – G
    ·    #274 COORDINATION PROCESS 43 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1712
    ·    052412 – RCahill – SMPdraft
    ·    #273 the spirit and intent of the Department of Ecology’s Shorelands and Environmental Assistance, publication number 09-06-029,
    ·    052212 – JBlazer – SED
    ·    #272 The problem… my parcel and the 2 parcels to the south would be hard pressed to build residences that take advantage of the marine view using the 175 ft setback in the proposed designation of Freshwater Conservancy.
    ·    052112 – MBlack – SMPdraft
    ·    #271 The overall concern I have is that you are in fact taking future uses away from
    ·    private land holders without clearly acknowledging doing so.
    ·    051712 – PHewett – G
    ·    #270 SELLING AND BUYING DOE SMP NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY
    ·    051612 – PHewett – PPS
    ·    #269 SMP Public Forum participation
    ·    051512 – ASoule – SMPdraft
    ·    #268 SMP references to sea level rise
    ·    051212 – PHewett – G
    ·    #267 FORKS SMP PUBLIC FORUM MAY 10, 2012
    ·    051212 – KNorman – SED
    ·    #266 I hope that you will reconsider the classification of these lots based on this information as to do otherwise would be a severe hardship on the owners of the lots and would constitute a “taking” of the land.
    ·    051112 – FutureWise-PPS – SMPdraft
    ·    #265 Clallam County v. Futurewise 7 years + lawsuit Carlsborg. The current SMP updates are an opportunity to significantly improve protection for the straits and the county’s other shorelines.
    ·    050812 – EBowen – G20
    ·    #264  S. Gray to Ed Bowen Final Draft WRIA 20 Preliminary SMP Elements Report
    ·    050812 – WFlint – SED
    ·    #263 The Lower Lyre River should be designated as Freshwater Residential (FRSD), and not Freshwater Conservancy (FC) as it is now proposed.
    ·    050812 – PHewett – G
    ·    #262 SCIENTIFIC PAPERS AND THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW DOE has consistently ignored questions asked on SMP comments, posted on the Clallam County SMP Update website, and at SMP Advisory meetings. I am requesting answers to the following questions to comply with the core principles of Due Process and the DOE SMP taking of private property in Clallam County.
    ·    050712 – USFWS – SMPdraft
    ·    #261  The Service strongly supports maintaining the feeder bluffs in their natural functioning condition.
    ·    050612 – PHewett – G
    ·    #260 If it is not recorded with the Clallam County Auditors Office it is not on the Property Title. What should be recorded with the Auditors office for Public Record?
    ·    050512 – ESpees – G
    ·    #259 The premise of the SMA/SMP Undate ‘that there is and environmental crisis’ that requires a draconian governmental intervention is bogus.
    ·    050412 – LMuench – G
    ·    #258 I think you would best be served by showing shrubs as well as trees. Since the graphics are done, what about a red arrow pointing to the trees saying “may be limbed for views.” This is a major issue with shoreline land owners.
    ·    050412 – ESpees – G
    ·    #257 The ECONOMIC IMPACT of the DoE imposed SMA/SMP Update for 2012 will be staggering!!!
    ·    050412 – PHewett – G
    ·    #256 Clallam County DOE SMP update, written text, uses our safety and protection as an excuse to take, restrict and control the use/development of our private property.
    ·    050312 – JBettcher – G
    ·    #255 I appreciate the public benefit of a healthy ecosystem but oppose the taking of private property by prohibiting private landowners from applying the best engineering practices to resist natural whims.
    ·    050212 – PHewett – G
    ·    #254 REAL ESTATE MARKET VALUE OF NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY
    April:
    ·    042812 – PHewett – G
    ·    #253 FEMA AND OTHER POLICY SPECIFIC INSURANCE COVERAGE
    ·    042812 – PHewett – G
    ·    #252 House Bill 2671  If a county appeals the (DOE) Department of Ecology’s final action on their local shoreline master program and  the appeal is given to the Growth Management Hearings Board?
    ·    042812 – PHewett – G
    ·    #251 No. 87053-5 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
    ·    042612 – PHewett -G
    ·    #250 CLALLAM COUNTY- NEGLECT OF WIRA 20 SMP PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS
    ·    042112 – Spees – G
    ·    #249 this insane outrageous governmental over reach under the thinly veiled cover of saving the environment. The problem now is not the environment.
    ·    042112 – PHewett – G
    ·    #248 PARTIAL DISCLOSURE OF SMP IMPACT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS
    ·    041812 – PHewett – G
    ·    #247 The statistics introduced at the last SMP Advisory meeting, on how many private property owners, property and single family dwellings will become non-conforming by the SMP Draft marine 175′, 150′ plus 10′ setbacks, has not been posted on the SMP web site.
    ·    041712 – Port of PA – G
    ·    #246 Table 4.1 the proposed draft buffer in row “a” should be modified from 100’ to 50’
    March:
    ·    032912 – PHewett – G
    ·    #245 THE MOST UNSCIENTIFIC PARTS OF THE DOE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP ARE, that even with DOE’S 1616 employees and a billion dollar budget.DOE doesn’t have a single analyst capable of compiling and reporting the most important documented/published scientific statistics provided by The Clallam County Inventory and Characteristic reports.
    ·    032612 – PHewett – G
    ·    #244 ESA Adolfson’s consultant’s failure to comply with WA State Law RCW 90.58.100 Each master program shall contain standards governing the protection of single family residences and appurtenant structures against damage or loss due to shoreline erosion.
    ·    032512 – PHewett – G20
    ·    #243 WIRA 20 Sol Duc River Reach 80 needs to be re-designated on proposed draft to 3.1.1.4 Freshwater Conservancy (FC)
    ·    032312 – RCrittenden – SMPdraft
    ·    #242 Thus, all regulation is evil by its nature and it is repressive. The best regulations are those that are the least that is necessary to accomplish their intended legitimate purpose. And “legitimate” is not to be broadly construed.
    ·    032212 – PHewett/RCrittenden – G
    ·    #241 Dr. Robert N. Crittenden SMP comments, testimony, tables and reviews
    ·    032112 – OEC – SMPdraft
    ·    #240  Change “should” to “shall” ,,,,culverts, and bridges shall be conducted using best practices….
    ·    031712 – PHewett – G
    ·    #239 PATENT LAND GRANTS ISSUED PRIOR TO STATEHOOD
    ·    031412 – MBarry – G
    ·    #238 These shorelines are critical for wildlife and natural ecological functions. I favor large setbacks. I favor development restrictions
    ·    030912 – PHewett – G/NNL
    ·    #237 Building Permit 2012-00014 issued to owners, David and Maria Tebow, Battle Creek MI. Two story 4 bedroom house 4770 sq feet, garage 927 sq feet, covered deck 173 sq feet with 19 plumbing drains (Number of Bathrooms?) Setbacks 60/25/25 Project value $486,781.18. the written guarantee bythe Clallam County DCD of no net loss to ecological functions (documented on building permit)
    ·    030512 – ESpees – SMPdraft
    ·    #236 There is no way that these voluminous shoreline land use policies can be understood. It takes no imagination to understand that this process is not ‘due process’ in the taking of beneficial use of our Private Property
    ·    030412 – PHewett – SMPdraft
    ·    #235 DOE Public Trust Doctrine web site (88 pages) has gone missing
    ·    030312 – KAhlburg – SMPdraft
    ·    #234 The last sentence runs directly counter to this assurance and needs to be modified or deleted. It otherwise will constitute yet another unfunded mandate burdening the County and “other entities” (which ones?).
    ·    030212 – PHewett – NNL/SMPdraft
    ·    #233 Lake Sutherland is a perfect example of Ecology’s NO NET LOSS.
    ·    With a 35 foot setback since 1976 there is no net loss of ecological function in Lake Sutherland.
    ·    030112 – MarineResourcesCouncil – SMPdraft
    ·    #232 It may also be possible that under certain development conditions, if done to minimize impervious surface and maximize water infiltration, could enhance the function of the buffer and perhaps allow for a narrower buffer.
    February:
    ·    022812 – FutureWise – SMPdraft
    ·    #231 The first half establishes the expected character of shoreline buffers, and is well stated. But the second half goes on to state that only 80% of the buffer vegetation is protected, and that 20% can be used for lawns and other use areas.
    ·    022812 – PHewett – NNL
    ·    #230 NO NET LOSS MENTIONED In law RCW 36.70A.480 (4) Shoreline master programs shall provide a level of protection to critical areaslocated within shorelines of the state that assures no net loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources as defined bydepartment of ecology guidelines adopted pursuant to RCW 90.58.060.
    ·    022812 – PHewett – NNL
    ·    #229 The policies, goals, and provisions of chapter 90.58 RCW and applicable guidelines shall be the sole basis for determining compliance of a shoreline master program
    ·    022712 – WDOE- SMP Statue
    ·    #228 Gordon White letter dated Feb. 27,2012 page 4, disclaimer of creating enforceable state LAW by rule on Page 88 of the WA State Public Trust Doctrine.
    ·    022412 – QuileuteNation – SMPdraft
    ·    #227 TRIBAL comment
    January:
    ·    010312 – LowerElwhaKlalllamTribe – SED
    ·    #226 TRIBAL comment

    SMP Comments 2011:
    December:
    ·    120811 – PHewett – G
    ·    #225 WETLANDS NOT ON SMP MAPS Attachments: Lowell OREGON Local Wetland Inventory Report DRAFT.docx
    ·    120811 – PHewett – G
    ·    #224 Perkins and Coie  Your Request on Tacoma SMP Attachments: 12-13-10 letter to Gary Brackett.pdf; SMA and Public Access.pdf
    ·    120711 -OlympicEnvironmentalCouncil (OEC) – G
    ·    #223 Sea level  rise and climate change
    ·    120611 – WDOE- ICR20
    ·    #222  Draft WRIA 20 Inventory and Characterization
    November:
    ·    113011 – ESpees – G
    ·    #221 In the WRIA Process and the SMA/SMP Update Process the concept of State regulation of land use based on Feeder Bluffs and Littoral Drift Cells is a False Construct.
    ·    112511 – ESpees – G
    ·    #220 The DoE’s current cram-down of NNL and increased set-backs based on precautionary principle and ‘new understandings of science’ (non-science/non-sense/pseudo-science) should be rejected.
    ·    112411 – ESpees – G
    ·    #219 It’s content is extremely pertinent to the work we are doing in Clallam County’s SMA/SMP Update.
    ·    111611 – MPfaff-Pierce – SED
    ·    #218 Specifically, I am requesting that you reclassify the entire Whiskey Creek Beach Resort area as Modified Lowland. Right now you are proposing that a short area west of the creek be designated as Modified Lowland and the rest as High Bank.
    ·    111111 – JPetersen – SED
    ·    #217 Many activities would be prohibited without really looking at the specifics.
    ·    111011 – PHewett – G
    ·    #216 This is on the DOE Public Trust Doctrine web site (88 pages)”Finally, SMP’S, unlike other comprehensive plans, are adopted as WAC’S and become part of the state’s Shoreline Master Program. As such, all local SMP rules, regulations, designations and guidelines BECOME STATE LAW AND ARE ENFORCEABLE. in this manner, protection of public trust resources and uses becomes binding.”
    ·    110711 – PHewett – G
    ·    #215 SMP FOLLOW THE LETTER OF THE LAW
    ·    110711 – PHewett – G
    ·    #214 Court: Washington Supreme Court Docket: 84675-8 Opinion Date: August 18, 2011 Judge: Johnson Areas of Law: Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use Applicable Law and Analysis. In affirming the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court explained that even though there is significant local government involvement in the creation of SMPs, the process is done in the shadow of the Department of Ecology’s (DOE) control.
    ·    110711 – PHewett – G
    ·    #213 the Shoreline Management Act dictates that the Department of Ecology retains control over the final contents and approval of SMPs. Therefore, SMP regulations are the product of state action and are not subject to RCW 82.02.020.”
    ·    110611 – PHewett – G
    ·    #212 EXCLUDED SMP DOE WAC’S DO NOT BECOME LAW
    ·    110511 – ESpees – NNL
    ·    #211 In keeping with regard to no net loss was unclear and without any foundation.
    ·    110511 – ESpees – G
    ·    #210 The law has recently been perverted by State Agencies to usurp private property rights, an uncompensated State taking by regulation.
    ·    110511 – PHewett – G
    ·    #209 There is no WA State law requiring any taking of private property for public access on the Clallam County SMP Update.
    ·    110411 – PHewett – G
    ·    #208 WHO CAN STOP DOE WAC’S FROM BECOMING STATE LAWS?
    ·    110411 – PHewett – G
    ·    #207 Victory for PLF Whatcom County’s shoreline management rules conflict with state law, which mandates that counties “shall provide for methods which achieve effective and timely protection against loss or damage to single family residences and appurtenant structures due to shoreline erosion.” RCW 90.58.100.
    ·    110411 – PHewett – G
    ·    #206 BY Law there is NO mention of the words “imminent or danger or soft armoring” IF THIS WORDING IS USED ON THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT IT CONTRADICTS WA STATE LAW RCW 90.58.100 Protection of single family residences IT WILL BECOME CLALLAM COUNTY LAW.
    ·    110311 – WDFW – ICR
    ·    #205 A useful tool may be to describe, in general, the range of possible existing conditions within any portion of the shoreline.
    ·
    October:
    ·    103111 – WDOE – ICR
    ·    #204  Not a copy format
    ·    103111 – JLarson – ICR
    ·    #203 I made at last SMP-WG meeting be incorporated into record
    ·    102011 – PHewett – SED
    ·    # 202 Who’s toes will you be stepping on by using this? Will you be able to notify the private property owners that are inadvertently compromised? Are there any single family residences, in any areas, where you have not specifically provided comment on protection by Law?
    ·    102011 – PHewett – SED
    ·    #201 Is this another WAC overstepping it’s authority and the LAW?
    ·    101911 – PHewett – NNL
    ·    #200 The concept of no net loss in this State originated with earlier efforts to protect wetlands. In 1989, Governor Booth Gardner signed an Executive Order establishing a statewide goal regarding wetlands protection.
    ·    101811 – JEstes – G
    ·    #199 There are 3,289 shoreline property owners in Clallam County about to be subject to
    ·    further regulation and restriction on the use of their land.
    ·    101711 – PHewett – G
    ·     #198 Unconstitutional Conditions of  WAC 173-26-191 Some master program policies may not be fully attainable by regulatory means due to the constitutional and other legal limitations on the regulation of private property.
    ·    101711 – WSP – ICR20
    ·    #197 Any additional comments on the two Clallam County SMP Inventory and Characterizations Reports are due by October 31, 2011
    ·    101111 – PHewett – G
    ·    #196 WAC’S ARE NOT LAW’S? Guidelines Are Not Law’s? Rules Are Not Law’s?
    ·    100811 – PHewett – ICR
    ·    #195 WAC 365-195-905 Criteria for determining which information is the best available science
    ·    100611 – PHewett – G
    ·    #194 REMOTE VIEWING AND SPACIAL DATA I did not find a State- of- the art- GSI and remote sensing facility for WA State?
    No b comment for #193?
    ·    100411 – PHewett – G/ICR
    ·    #192 Please bring the SMP Public Comments up to date.
    ·    100311 – JTatom – G
    ·    #191 As a property owner in Clallam County, I cannot imagine that you, as servants of the county, would even consider placing additional restrictions on residents who live near shorelines (marine, rivers, streams and lakes). Already we find ourselves so restricted that we are unable to use large portions
    ·    of our “privately” owned property.
    ·    100111 – PHewett – G
    ·    #190 Is it the intent, of two Elected County Commissioners, that total control of all private property in Clallam County, be given to the Federal Government and the WA State DOE, one way or the other?
    September:
    ·    092611 – PHewett – G/ICR
    ·    #189 Taking of Private Property for Public Access I insist that ESA Adolfson give us the total land acreage of private property that is affected by the SMP Update subject to NO NET LOSS and taking for Public Access.
    ·    092511 – PHewett – G
    ·    #188 Noxious Weed Control ‐ LMD#2 Lake Sutherland
    There is no #187  public comment?
    ·    092211 – PHewett – G
    ·    #186 SHORELINE RESIDENTS SWAMPED BY REGULATIONS
    ·    092211 – PHewett – ICR
    ·    #185 I tried to stress the fact that it is not lack of public land, it is the lack of public access to that publically owned land,
    ·    that is the problem.
    ·    092211 – PHewett – ICR
    ·    #184 CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTIC REPORT Based on the “Best Available Science?”
    ·    092211 – JamestownSKlallamTribe – ICR
    ·    #183 Tribal comment
    ·    091311 – LowerElwhaKlallamTribe – ICR
    ·    #182 Tribal comment
    ·    091011 – PHewett – G
    ·    #181 CLALLAM COUNTY SECTION 35.01.150 Real property assessments. PROTECTION FOR LOSS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY VALUE?  The restrictions imposed by the Shoreline Master Program shall be considered by the County Assessor in establishing the fair market value of the property.
    ·    091011 – PHewett – G
    ·    #180 PUBLIC COMMENT REPORT ON SMP Public Forum July 14, 2011
    ·    090411 – JLewis – CR/ICR
    ·    #179 Public access across our property through our wetlands and over our berm to our private beach would be of great concern to us. Here are some questions and concerns we’d like addressed and you consider amending the provisions for providing public shoreline access:
    ·    090311 – ESpees – G
    ·    #178 The Drift Cells, Littoral Drift, and
    ·    Feeder Bluffs Construct are so much BS/Smoke and Mirrors.
    ·    090311 – ESpees – G
    ·    #177 The Shoreline Master Program Update is rigged. NNL & larger setbacks do not represent the ‘will of the people’. It does not protect the rights of the Citizens.
    ·    090211 – ESpees – G
    ·    #176 I gave my opinion about ‘locking up’ shorelines property based on salmon and endangered species as a pretext
    August:
    ·    083111 – WDNR – ICR
    ·    #175 Incidentally, many of the docks and other development may
    ·    encroach onto State owned aquatic lands without proper DNR authorization.
    ·    083111 – MarineResourcesCouncil – ICR
    ·    #174 There is obviously no “ground truthing” of the information in this report.
    ·    083111 – JLWisecup – G
    ·    #173 It lists it as a slide area although for the past 32 years we have had no indication of any land movement or building shift.
    ·    083111 – ESpees – G
    ·    #172 It is more loony insanity being foisted on the Citizens of the State of Washington by a Government and their agents that
    ·    are out of control.
    ·    083111 – ESpees -G
    ·    171 The SMA/SMP and the WRIA processes are a means of locking up, transferring ownership to the State, and regulating the use of these areas/preventing private economic and other beneficial use of these prime areas.
    ·    082811 – PHewett – G
    ·    #170 SILT DAMAGE FROM ELWHA TO DUNGENESS SPIT?
    ·    082511 – ElwhaMorseMgmtTeam – ICRMaps
    ·    #169  Chris Byrnes commented on the yellow dots off shore (indicating “no appreciable drift”), argued that if it was so small, there wouldn’t be drifting anyway.
    ·    082511 – CoastalWatershedInstitute – ICR
    ·    #168 The characterization needs to be revised to include existing CLALLAM specific information and appropriate relevant recommendations that are in this existing information.
    ·    082511 – DAbbott – G
    ·    #167 I would like to see every effort made to ensure the constitutional rights of private property ownership made by those who have influence in our lawmaking process. These rights have been encroached upon over the years and there is a renewed concern today by many private citizens.
    ·    082411 – PHewett – G
    ·    #166 WA State SMP is requiring Public access on private property at the expense of the property owner.
    There is no comment#164
    There is no comment #163
    ·    081011 – MarineResourcesCouncil – ICR
    ·    #162 I urge you to look at the reach/s or resource issues within all reaches for accuracy, omissions, and errors.
    ·    There is no comment #161
    ·
    ·    081011 – WSP – ICR
    ·    #160 not able to copy
    ·
    ·    There is no comment #159
    ·
    ·    There is no comment #158
    ·
    ·    080511 – PHewett – ICR
    ·    #157 Wetlands are not included on SMP Update maps showing the areas that are a threat and risk of development.
    ·
    ·    There is no comment #156
    ·
    ·    There is no comment #155
    ·
    ·    080111 – FutureWise – ICR
    ·    #154 The Sierra Club
    July:
    ·    072611 – WASeaGrant – ICR
    ·    #153 Coastal Hazards Specialist
    There is not comment #152
    ·    072211 – PHewett – G
    ·    #151 Fact or Fiction, It is illegal to collect water in a rain barrel?
    ·    The State owns all rainwater?
    ·    072011 – CCPlCom – ICR
    ·    #150 The July Forum attendance was low and those that intended appeared to be struggling with the information presented and the questions to ask.
    There is no comment #149
    ·    072011 – PHewett – ICR
    ·    #148 Marine and Fresh water reach’s impaired by water temperature
    ·    072011 – PHewett – G
    ·    #147 Freshwater reaches impaired by water temperature (32) Marine reaches impaired by water temperature (6) Contaminated Marine Reaches (5)
    ·    Contaminated Freshwater Reaches (2) plus several
    ·    072011 – ESpees – G
    ·    #146 What the hell does NNL (No Net Loss of ecological function) mean? What is the plan for the amount of setbacks? What is the basis of this vague indefinable policy?
    ·    072011 – PHewett – ICR20
    ·    #145 On page 5-14 HOKO_RV_05 is not listed. Shore line length 3.8 miles and Reach area 246.40 acres 100% timber
    ·    071711 – PHewett – G
    ·    #144 TOP TEN PUBLIC SMP UPDATE CONCERNS
    ·    071711 – ESpees – G
    ·    #143 Tribes not affected by Shoreline Mgmt. Plan Updates
    ·    071611 – ESpees – G
    ·    #142 the DoE/EPA attempt to strip the Citizens of their private property rights.
    ·    071611 – ESpees – G
    ·    #141 It uses Drift Cells and Littoral Drift as excuses to take away private use and protections of private property. This has to do with ‘feeder bluffs’
    ·    071211 – TSimpson – ICR
    ·    #140 Page 6-12 Needs Correction :Lines 19-22
    ·    071211 – PHewett – ICR
    ·    #139 COLD ENOUGH?Based on their own reports and data, the amount of tree canopy, logging, development and public access are NOT factors in the impaired water temperature? Perhaps 50 years ago the water WAS cold enough?
    ·    071211 – PHewett – ICR
    ·    #138 Why is Green Crow the only contaminator mentioned by name? We should be given the exact location of every specific contaminated site and
    ·    the full identity of EVERY contaminator.
    ·    071111 – ESpees – G
    ·    #137 Conspicuously absent from the report of the first meeting is an accounting of the economical impact.
    ·    070811 – PHewett – ICR
    ·    #136 If more public access is needed, it is not the responsibility of Private Property Owner’s to provide it.
    ·    070811 – PHewett – ICR
    ·    #135 The Clallam County SMP update requires private property owners to give public access to their privately owned marine shorelines, prior to permitting development.
    ·
    ·    No comment # 134
    ·    No comment #133
    ·    No Comment #132

    SMP Comments 2011 cont.
    June:
    ·    062811 – JLMcClanahan – G20
    ·     #131 She was very concerned about any
    ·    potential regulatory changes that would result in the loss of options for using their two parcels in the future.
    ·    062411 – RTMcAvoy – G20
    ·    #130 they are against any such change for the reasons stated herein.
    ·    062411 – DMansfield – G20
    ·    #129 Adamant about no further restrictions on property
    ·    062411 – PCWidden – G20
    ·    #128 Concerns about changing the current SMP status from Rural to Conservancy.
    No comment #127
    ·    062011 – JEstes – G
    ·    #126  detail on how members of the public and affected property owners are being notified
    No Comment # 125
    ·    060611 – WDOE – CR
    ·    #124 local DOE
    ·    060611 – PortofPA – CR
    ·    #123 LIMIT NOT PROHIBIT
    ·    060411 – ESpees – CR
    ·    #122 The salmonid stocks in Clallam County are not limited by freshwater habitat
    ·    060311 – JamestownSKlallamTribe – CR
    ·    #121 Tribal Comment
    ·    060311 – HBell – CR
    ·    #120 This is not required by the RCW nor the WAC. WAC 173-26-241
    ·    060311 – WSP – CR
    ·    #119 State Park comment
    ·    060311 – WDOE – CR
    ·    #118 Local DOE
    ·    060311 – ESpees – CR
    ·    #117 By Dr. Robert N. Crittenden
    ·    060211 – RCrittenden – CR
    ·    #116 the low abundance of these stocks is also being used, to perpetrate the deception that it is caused by habitat loss.
    ·    060211 – JEstes – CR
    ·    #115 the CR is one of several steps the County will take to consider if any existing “policies or regulations need to change.” There must be demonstrated
    ·    need for any changes and all affected landowners should be invited to consider any changes.
    ·    060211 – SForde – G
    ·    #114 Which one of my individual rights are you protecting with the Shoreline Master Plan and/or any updates to it? The answer: None – in fact, you are violating them.
    ·    060211 – QuileuteNation – CR
    ·    #113 Tribal comment
    ·    060211 – CRogers – CR
    ·    #112 -Page 4 typo error
    ·    060211  –  QuileuteNation – CR
    ·    #111 Tribal comment
    ·    060111 – AStevenson – CR
    ·    #110 a marked up PDF of the Consistency Review
    ·    060111 – ESpees – G
    ·    #109 SMP Update – SMP Update Rigged Process
    No comment #108
    ·    060111 – PHewett – G #107
    ·    TOTALITARIAN: by definition(concerned with) arrogating (to the state and the ruling party) all rights and liberty of every choice, including those normally belonging to individuals, etc.
    ·    060111 – MTWalker – G
    ·    #106 The SMP should be rejected in all it’s forms. It erodes our rights and freedoms, does not comply with and is in fact contrary to the Constitution, is poorly written, poorly organized, vague, and its objectives are ambiguous/obscure.
    ·    060111 – ESpees – G
    ·    #105 Tribes Not Affected
    May:
    ·    053111 – ESpees – G
    ·    #104 The SMP erodes our rights and freedoms
    ·    053111 – ESpees – G
    ·    #103 The NNL Policy, larger setbacks and buffers, and new forced public access to private property will further erode our freedoms.
    ·    053111 – MGentry – G
    ·    #102 Green Point, group. 35 were invited and 17 showed up plus Dave Hannah was there to answer questions on bluff stability. Of the 17 only one was aware of SMP or said they had been contacted about forums.
    ·    053111 – PHewett – G / CR
    ·    #101 Pacific Legal Foundation If government blocks access to your land, it has committed a taking Dunlap v. City of Nooksack
    ·    052911 – ESpees – G
    ·    052911 – PHewett – G
    ·    052811 – ESpees – G
    ·    052811 – RHale – G
    ·    052711 – ESpees – G
    ·    052711 – PHewett – G
    ·    052611 – MGentry – G
    ·    052111 – PHewett – G
    ·    051811 – JPetersen – CR
    ·    051811 – NOTAC – CR
    ·    051311 – PHewett – G
    ·    051311 – PHewett – G
    ·    051311 – PHewett – G
    ·    051011 – TSummer – G
    ·    050611 – PHewett – G
    ·    050611 – PHewett – CR
    ·    050511 – PHewett – CR
    ·    050511 – PHewett – CR
    ·    050511 – PHewett – G
    April:
    ·    042611 – ESpees – G
    ·    042311 – MBlack – G
    ·    042011 – KAhlburg – G
    ·    041811 – QuileuteNation – G
    ·    041411 – RColby – G
    ·    041411 – TSimpson – G
    ·    041211 – BBrennan – G
    ·    041111 – NN – G
    ·    041111 – MGentry – G
    ·    041111 – NN – G
    ·    041111 – RMorris – G
    ·    041111 – NMessmer – G
    ·    041011 – RMorris – G
    ·    04 –11- RMorris – G
    March:
    ·    031511- PHewett – G
    ·    031511 – RMorris – G
    ·    031511 – RMorris – G
    ·    031411 – MGentry – G
    ·    031111- JWare – G
    ·    030211 – PHewett – G
    ·    030211 – PHewett – G
    February:
    ·    021711 – MLangley – G
    ·    021511 – PHewett – G
    ·    020211 – RBrown – G
    January:
    ·    012611 – MBoutelle – G
    ·    012111 – CAbrass – G
    ·    011811 – DJones – G
    2010:
    ·    110810 – WDNR – G
    ·    080510 – PSP – G
    ·    031010 – WDOE – PPS
    ·    030910 – WDOE – PPS
    ·    030810 – LMuench – PPS
    ·    030410 – QuileuteNation – PPS
    ·    022410 – FutureWise – PPS
    ·    020910 – JMarrs – PPS
    2009:
    ·    120509 – DemComm – G

    Posted in Shoreline Mgmt. Plan

    Comments are closed.


  • In An Apparent Shell Game S.2012

    The bill in question is No. S.2012 -the North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2016

    In an apparent “SHELL GAME” likely intended to disguise a hidden agenda and to confuse the American public, Congress is considering “BEHIND CLOSED DOORS” two versions of S.2012.

    U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (AK-R) is pushing a massive 792 page Senate Energy bill incorporating more than 393 amendments covering these and other policy areas

    ———————————————-

    Polson, Montana –September 14, 2016

    According to nonprofit Western States Constitutional Rights, LLC,

    S.2012 contains VERY harmful tribal government forest management provisions that could severely diminish the constitutionally protected rights of western and rural private property owners throughout the  United States

    In an apparent “SHELL GAME” likely intended to disguise a hidden agenda and to confuse the American public, Congress is considering “BEHIND CLOSED DOORS” two versions of S.2012.

    ———————————————————————–

    Why would the Politico’s establishment of this Congressional Mumbo Jumbo confuse the American public?

    —————————————————————-

    snippet…

    It is understood that the Senate passed the Murkowski version without forestry measures in April 2016, while the U.S. House of Representatives passed a second version with both forestry and tribal forest management measures in May 2016,namely,H.R. 2647 –the Resilient Federal

    Forests Act of 2015. H.R. 2647 was sponsored by Representative Bruce Westerman (AR-R) and cosponsored by 11 Republicans and 2 Democrats. It seems H.R. 2647 was incorporated within the House version of S.2012 via an amendment adding new Title VII as part of “Division B, Titles I-X”.1 On September 8, 2016, the two versions of House/Senate S.2012 were submitted to a Congressional conference committee to be reconciled for ultimate passage by both chambers and signature into law by President Obama.

    ———————————————–

    DON’T WAIT UNTIL S.2012 IS PASSED  BY CONGRESS, LIKE OBAMACARE, TO FIND OUT WHAT’S IN THE NORTH AMERICAN ENERGY SECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE ACT OF 2016  

    We the People must demand an end to the secrecy, shady backroom deals, and usurpation of our natural and constitutional freedoms and property rights.

    ————————————————————–

    WELL NOT REALLY…

    WE THE PEOPLE MUST INFORM AMERICAN CITIZENS REGARDING USURPATION’S of  S.2012

    THAN ON NOV 8, 2016 WE THE PEOPLE  VOTE FOR TRUMP.

    AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TRUMP PUTS AN END TO ALL OF THE SECRECY, SHADY BACKROOM DEALS, AND USURPATION OF OUR NATURAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOMS AND PROPERTY RIGHTS.

    ENDING A MASSIVE  NUMBER OF GOVERNMENT USURPATION’S

    By definition an act of usurping; wrongful or illegal encroachment, infringement, or seizure.

    INCLUDING OBAMA’S EXECUTIVE ORDERS

    —————————————————————-

    A UN and tribal takeover? – Canada Free Press

    canadafreepress.com/…/energybillshidden-tribal-forest-management-amp-other-pro

    2 days ago – Hidden provisions in congressional energy bills undermine America’s … of private property owners throughout the United States, the Western States … shared by many citizens throughout the western and rural United States.

     

    By Lawrence Kogan —— Bio and Archives September 17, 2016

    A MASSIVE 792-PAGE SENATE ENERGY COMMITTEE BILL THREATENS TO AUTHORIZE FEDERAL BUREAUCRATS TO CEDE EXTENSIVE CONTROL OVER WESTERN STATE WATER AND PROPERTY RIGHTS, ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AND FOREST MANAGEMENT TO NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES, LOCAL UN SUSTAINABILITY COUNCILS AND RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALIST GROUPS.

     CERTAIN PROVISIONS COULD UNDERMINE THE FOUNDATIONS OF OUR NATION FROM WITHIN OUR NATION.

    S.2012, the North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2016, incorporates some 393 amendments. Incredibly, it is being driven forward by U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and other members of Congress behind closed doors. Probably very few have read the bill in its entirety. Virtually none understand its likely impacts on western and other rural land, water and property rights, potentially throughout America, or on the families and communities whose lives will be upended.

    This secretive approach—with no opportunities for meaningful public examination or comment, even by those who will be most affected—is almost unprecedented. It could well become another example of “we have to pass it to find out what’s in it.” But numerous people will have to live with the consequences, while the authors and implementers walk away exempted, unscathed and unaccountable.

    The bill’s tribal government forest management provisions are extremely harmful and could severely diminish the constitutionally protected rights of private property owners throughout the United States, the Western States Constitutional Rights consortium emphasizes. Indeed, the pending legislation is itself unconstitutional, as explained in a legal memorandum the consortium sent to 13 members of Congress.

    This Montana-based nonprofit was formed to safeguard the property rights of farmers, ranchers and other land and business owners against reckless federal, state and local government laws, regulations and policies. WSCR members live on or near the Flathead Irrigation Project within the Flathead Indian Reservation, and in other parts of northwestern Montana. But their concerns are widely shared by many citizens throughout the western and rural United States. It has a long, hard road ahead on these issues.

    The apparent “shell game” is likely intended to disguise a hidden agenda and confuse people. In fact, Congress is quietly considering two versions: a Senate-passedMurkowski version without forestry measures and a House of Representatives version with both forestry and tribal forest management measures (H.R. 2647, the Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2015, sponsored by Representative Bruce Westerman (R-AR) and cosponsored by 11 Republicans and 2 Democrats). Bipartisan chicanery.

    On September 8, the two versions were submitted to a conference committee, to be reconciled so that both chambers can pass a bill and President Obama can sign it into law. The problems are extensive.

    The House/Senate versions’ forestry measures embrace Euro-UN-Agenda 21 sustainable forest management principles, plus United Nations Indigenous Peoples Rights policies that would supersede the U.S. Constitution—while implementing unscientific climate change and sustainability objectives devised by the White House and “Forest Service Strategic Energy Framework.”

    Tribal Forest Management (TFM) provisions in House/Senate S.2012 are more problematic, because they would racially discriminate in favor of Native American tribes. They would do so by using the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to recognize off-reservation aboriginal pre-European land and water rights—where none exist in U.S. law—at the expense of all other Americans’ constitutionally protected private property rights. S.2012s’ TFM provisions would also:

    • Supplant states’ authority and jurisdiction over their natural resources, as recognized by the Tenth Amendment requirement that these resources be held in “public trust” for the benefit of each state’s citizens—including incredibly hard-working western ranchers who put so much food on your table.
    • Enable Native American Tribes to treat “Federal Forest Lands” (including national forests and national parks belonging to all Americans) as “Indian Forest Lands,” merely by establishing that “the Federal forest land is located within, or mostly within, a geographical area that presents a feature or involves circumstances principally relevant to that Indian tribe.” That means a tribe only has to show that the lands are covered by an Indian treaty, are part of a current or former Indian reservation, or were once adjudicated by the former Indian Claims Commission as part of a “tribal homeland.”
    • Provide Native American Tribes near U.S. national forest and park lands with federal “638” contracts to manage, oversee and control such lands and appurtenant water resources for federal regulatory and other purposes, even when they are well beyond the boundaries of Indian reservations.
    • Expand tribal political sovereignty and legal jurisdiction and control, especially over mountainous forest lands—the source of most snowpack and other waters that farmers, ranchers, and even towns and cities rely on for irrigation, drinking and other water needs.
    • Enable tribes to impose new federal fiduciary trust obligations on the U.S. government to protect their religious, cultural and spiritual rights to fish, waters and lands located beyond the boundaries of Indian reservations, by severely curtailing non-tribal members’ constitutionally protected private water and land rights, without paying “just compensation” as required by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

    A recently filed federal lawsuit by the Hoopa Valley Tribe of northern California against the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and National Marine Fisheries Service underscores the importance of this so-called federal fiduciary trust obligation. The tribe wants to compel the agencies to protect the tribe’s alleged off-reservation aboriginal pre-European water and fishing rights in southern Oregon’s Klamath River and Upper Klamath Lake—even though their reservation is more than 240 miles southwest of the lake!

    A tribal court victory would severely curtail Klamath irrigators’ ability to exercise their rights to vitally needed water. Northern California’s Yurok Tribe says it will soon file its own lawsuit. A cascade of such legal actions would disrupt or destroy the entire western water rights system.

    Combined with S.3013 (Montana Democrat Senator John Tester’s Salish and Kootenai Water Rights Settlement Act), the TFM provisions would expand and codify into federal law off-reservation aboriginal water and fishing rights that the tribes now claim. That precedent could then be used by other litigious tribes to override water and private property public trust obligations that Montana, Oregon, California and other western states owe their citizens under state constitutions. It could happen throughout America!

    S.2012 would cause even more problems if Congress adds a Wyden-Merkley Amendment that provides federal funding and implementation for the controversial Klamath Basin Agreements Tribal Rights Settlement. That would greatly expand tribal water rights, in violation of U.S. constitutional requirements that any such expansion be pursuant to Congress’s authority to approve or reject interstate compacts or regulate commerce with Indian tribes.

    It would also create a federal and interstate template for greatly diminishing regional—and potentially all irrigators’—state-based private property rights, in favor of Native American tribes. Its proponents have grossly misrepresented the settlement’s alleged benefits and substantially understated the damage it would impose on Klamath Basin residents.

    If S.2012 is enacted into law with the tribal forest management, Wyden-Merkley Amendment and Salish-Kootenai Settlement, Congress will cede control over western and rural lands and waters to Native American tribes in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth, Ninth, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments.

    This year’s presidential and congressional elections are a referendum on the role and performance of government.

    We the People must demand an end to the secrecy, shady backroom deals, and usurpation of our natural and constitutional freedoms and property rights.

    Congress’ immediate withdrawal or modification of this grotesque omnibus energy bill would be a good first step in this direction.

    Lawrence Kogan is managing principal of The Kogan Law Group, PC of New York, NY and legal counsel to Western States Constitutional Rights, LLC.

    —————————————-

    Just asking?

    Why would the Politico’s establishment of this Congressional Mumbo Jumbo confuse the American public?

    ————————————————————————————–

    This West Is OUR West: Uniting Western States – Protecting Our Rights

    thiswestisourwest.com/

    Energy Bill’s Hidden Provisions UndermineS.2012 – the North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2016, which many in Congress … protected rights of western and rural private property owners throughout the United States.

    BREAKING NEWS September 15, 2016

    WESTERN STATES CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, LLC

    PRESS RELEASE

    Energy Bill’s Hidden Provisions Undermine Western and Rural U.S. Property Owners

    The following press release is based on a recently prepared memorandum of law and

    correspondences dispatched to 13 members of Congress explaining the unconstitutionality of pending legislation discussed below

    Polson, Montana – September 14, 2016 –

    Energy and forest management are not generally assumed to be interrelated policies.

    Nevertheless, U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (AK-R) is pushing a massive 792-page Senate Energy bill incorporating more than 393 amendments covering these and other policy areas. The bill in question is No. S.2012 – the North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2016, which many in Congress have not likely read.

    According to nonprofit Western States Constitutional Rights, LLC, S.2012 contains VERY harmful tribal government forest management provisions that could severely diminish the constitutionally protected rights of western and rural private property owners throughout the United States.

    In an apparent “SHELL GAME” likely intended to disguise a hidden agenda and to confuse the American public, Congress is considering BEHIND CLOSED DOORS two versions of S.2012.

    —————————————————————————————-

    A shell game is a shell game….. by hook,  by crooks or by the U.S. Congress

    Behind My Back | The “RESTORATION” Shell Game

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/06/09/the-restorationshellgame/

    Jun 9, 2014 – The “RESTORATIONShell Game. A highly convoluted “GAME OF RESTORATION” that is involving the sleight of many, many hands, in which …

    ——————————————————————————

    Read more on Pie N Politics

    News from Klamath Basin Crisis.org

    by Liz Bowen

     

    http://klamathbasincrisis.org/billslaws/2016/Energybillshiddenprovisions091516.pdf

    —————————————————————————-

    Western States Constitutional Rights, LLC is a Montana-based nonprofit entity the mission of which is to promote the protection of private property rights held by western United States property owners against reckless federal, state and local government laws, regulations and policies. Its members are irrigators, landowners and business owners located on or near the Flathead Irrigation Project situated within the Flathead Indian Reservation, and from other areas in northwestern Montana, but their concerns are widely shared by many citizens throughout the western and rural United States.

    All media inquiries should be directed to The Kogan Law Group, P.C., NY, NY, Western States Constitutional Rights, LLC’s legal counsel, at: 212-644-9240.

    —————————————————————–

    Energy,  forest management  and TRIBES are not generally assumed to be interrelated policies.

    Connecting the dots on  Senator Murkowski….

    Senator  Murkowski  (R) is an active member of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and served as Vice Chairman of the Committee during the 110th Congress. She is the Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and a member of the Committee on Appropriations, She was honored with a Congressional Leadership Award by the National Congress of American Indians


  • UK Independence Day June 23, 2016

    Image for the news result

    ​Donald J. Trump Statement Regarding British Referendum on E.U. Membership | Donald J Trump for President

    Donald Trump8 hours ago – June 24, 2016 –
     The people of the United Kingdom have exercised the sacred right of all free peoples. They have declared their independence from the European Union and have voted to reassert control over their own politics, borders and economy. A Trump Administration pledges to strengthen our ties with a free and independent Britain, deepening our bonds in commerce, culture and mutual defense. The whole world is more peaceful and stable when our two countries – and our two peoples – are united together, as they will be under a Trump Administration.

    Come November, the American people will have the chance to re-declare their independence. Americans will have a chance to vote for trade, immigration and foreign policies that put our citizens first. They will have the chance to reject today’s rule by the global elite, and to embrace real change that delivers a government of, by and for the people. I hope America is watching, it will soon be time to believe in America again.

    ———————————————————

    UK Independence Day June 23, 2016

    The populist vote is the ONLY reason the UK got out of the EU

    What was the Silent Majority thinking?

    UK out of the EU 7 Good Reasons

    Brexit: the 7 most important arguments for Britain to leave the EU

    Vox2 hours ago Updated by on June 24, 2016, 9:10 a.m. ET

    Yesterday, Britain voted to leave the European Union— an option dubbed “Brexit. … the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. … and many economists believe the euro was the primary culprit.

    Argument 1: The EU threatens British sovereignty

    Argument 2: The EU is strangling the UK in burdensome regulations

    Argument 3: The EU entrenches corporate interests and prevents radical reforms

    Argument 4: The EU was a good idea, but the euro is a disaster

    Argument 5: The EU allows too many immigrants

    Argument 6: The UK could have a more rational immigration system outside the EU

    Argument 7: The UK could keep the money it currently sends to the EU

    ———————————————————-

    Argument 1: The EU threatens British sovereignty

    This is probably the most common argument among intellectual-minded people on the British right, expressed by Conservative politicians such as former London Mayor Boris Johnson and Justice Minister Michael Gove.

    Over the past few decades, a series of EU treaties have shifted a growing amount of power from individual member states to the central EU bureaucracy in Brussels. On subjects where the EU has been granted authority — like competition policy, agriculture, and copyright and patent law — EU rules override national laws.

    Euroskeptics emphasize that the EU’s executive branch, called the European Commission, isn’t directly accountable to voters in Britain or anyone else. British leaders have some influence on the selection of the European Commission’s members every five years. But once the body has been chosen, none of its members are accountable to the British government or to Britons’ elected representatives in the European Parliament.

    Argument 2: The EU is strangling the UK in burdensome regulations

    Critics like Johnson say the EU’s regulations have become increasingly onerous:

    Sometimes these EU rules sound simply ludicrous, like the rule that you can’t recycle a teabag, or that children under eight cannot blow up balloons, or the limits on the power of vacuum cleaners. Sometimes they can be truly infuriating – like the time I discovered, in 2013, that there was nothing we could do to bring in better-designed cab windows for trucks, to stop cyclists being crushed. It had to be done at a European level, and the French were opposed.

    Many British conservatives look at the European bureaucracy in Brussels the same way American conservatives view the Washington bureaucracy. Gove has argued that EU regulations cost the British economy “£600 million every week” ($880 million). (Though this figure is disputed.)

    Argument 3: The EU entrenches corporate interests and prevents radical reforms

    Labour In Rally For The Last Time In The EU Referendum Campaign Photo by Matt Cardy/Getty Images
    Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn has been a reluctant supporter of the “remain” campaign.

    This is the mirror image of the previous two arguments. Whereas many British conservatives see the EU as imposing left-wing, big-government policies on Britain, some on the British left see things the other way around: that the EU’s antidemocratic structure gives too much power to corporate elites and prevents the British left from making significant gains.

    “The EU is anti-democratic and beyond reform,” said Enrico Tortolano, campaign director for Trade Unionists against the EU, in an interview with Quartz. The EU “provides the most hospitable ecosystem in the developed world for rentier monopoly corporations, tax-dodging elites and organized crime,” writes British journalist Paul Mason.

    This left-wing critique of the EU is part of a broader critique of elite institutions more generally, including the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. Brexit supporters on the left would have a lot in common with Americans who are against trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

    Argument 4: The EU was a good idea, but the euro is a disaster

    The United Kingdom has had a significant faction of euroskeptics ever since it joined the EU in 1973. But until recently, this was a minority position.

    “There are nearly 130 Conservative MPs who have declared for leaving the EU,” economist Andrew Lilico told me last week. “If you went back 10 years, you would have struggled to find more than 20 who even in private would have supported leaving the EU.”

    So what changed their minds? The global recession that began in 2008 was bad around the world, but it was much worse in countries that had adopted Europe’s common currency, the euro. The unemployment rate shot up above 20 percent in countries like Greece and Spain, triggering a massive debt crisis. Seven years after the recession began, Spain and Greece are still suffering from unemployment rates above 20 percent, and many economists believe the euro was the primary culprit.

    Luckily, the UK chose not to join the common currency, so there’s little danger of the euro directly cratering the British economy. But the euro’s dismal performance still provides extra ammunition to Brexit supporters.

    Many economists believe that deeper fiscal and political integration will be needed for the eurozone to work properly. Europe needs a common welfare and tax system so that countries facing particularly severe downturns — like Greece and Spain — can get extra help from the center.

    But that makes Britain’s continued inclusion in the EU awkward. Britain is unlikely to go along with deeper fiscal integration, but it would also be unwieldy to create a set of new, parallel eurozone-specific institutions that excluded the UK.

    So, the argument goes, it might be better for everyone if the UK got out of the EU, clearing the path for the rest of the EU to evolve more quickly into a unified European state.

    Argument 5: The EU allows too many immigrants

    Nigel Farage Gives His Final Speech Of The EU Referendum Campaign Photo by Dan Kitwood/Getty Images
    Nigel Farage, leader of the far-right United Kingdom Independence Party, has focused his campaign for Brexit on limiting immigration.

    The intellectual case for Brexit is mostly focused on economics, but the emotional case for Brexit is heavily influenced by immigration. EU law guarantees that citizens of one EU country have the right to travel, live, and take jobs in other EU countries.

    British people have increasingly felt the impact of this rule since the 2008 financial crisis. The eurozone has struggled economically, and workers from eurozone countries such as Ireland, Italy, and Lithuania (as well as EU countries like Poland and Romania that have not yet joined the common currency) have flocked to the UK in search of work.

    “In recent years, hundreds of thousands of Eastern Europeans have come to Britain to do a job,” British journalist and Brexit supporter Douglas Murray told me last week. This, he argues, has “undercut the native working population.”

    The UK absorbed 333,000 new people, on net, in 2015. That’s a significant number for a country Britain’s size, though according to the CIA the UK still received slightly fewer net migrants, relative to population, than the United States in 2015.

    Immigration has become a highly politicized issue in Britain, as it has in the United States and many other places over the past few years. Anti-immigration campaigners like Nigel Farage, the leader of the far-right UK Independence Party, have argued that the flood of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe has depressed the wages of native-born British workers. Some voters are also concerned about immigrants using scarce public services.

    “One of the causes for the great public disgruntlement,” Murray argues, is that Labour governments at the turn of the century “massively understated the numbers [of immigrants] to be expected,” creating public distrust of current pledges to keep migration under control.

    Argument 6: The UK could have a more rational immigration system outside the EU

    While many Brexit supporters simply want to reduce the amount of immigration overall, others argue that the UK could have a more sensible immigration system if it didn’t have the straitjacket of the EU.

    EU rules require the UK to admit all EU citizens who wants to move to Britain, whether or not they have good job prospects or English skills.

    “Leave” advocates argue that the UK should be focused on admitting immigrants who will bring valuable skills to the country and integrate well into British culture. They mention the point-based immigration systems of Canada and Australia, which award potential migrants points based on factors like their language and job skills, education, and age. That, “leave” advocates argue, would allow the UK to admit more doctors and engineers who speak fluent English, and fewer unskilled laborers with limited English skills.

    Argument 7: The UK could keep the money it currently sends to the EU

    The EU doesn’t have the power to directly collect taxes, but it requires member states to make an annual contribution to the central EU budget. Currently, the UK’s contribution is worth about £13 billion ($19 billion) per year, which is about $300 per person in the UK. (“Leave” supporters have been citing a larger figure, but that figure ignores a rebate that’s automatically subtracted from the UK’s contribution.)

    While much of this money is spent on services in the UK, Brexit supporters still argue that it would be better for the UK to simply keep the money and have Parliament decide how to spend it.

    —————————————————-

    The bottom line

    WHAT IS THE SILENT MAJORITY THINKING IN THE USA?

    I stand with TRUMP!

    Image for the news result

    The people of the United Kingdom have exercised the sacred right of all free peoples. They have declared their independence from the European Union and have voted to reassert control over their own politics, borders and economy. A Trump Administration pledges to strengthen our ties with a free and independent Britain, deepening our bonds in commerce, culture and mutual defense. The whole world is more peaceful and stable when our two countries – and our two peoples – are united together, as they will be under a Trump Administration.

    Come November, the American people will have the chance to re-declare their independence. Americans will have a chance to vote for trade, immigration and foreign policies that put our citizens first. They will have the chance to reject today’s rule by the global elite, and to embrace real change that delivers a government of, by and for the people. I hope America is watching, it will soon be time to believe in America again.


  • Private Central Bank Awaken slaves!

    Unedited full text

    Awaken slaves! – How The Private Central Bank Ponzi Scheme Trapped And Destroyed America

    By Michael Rivero

    Once upon a time, in 1913, a corrupt Congress and a corrupt President transferred the money creation authority vested in the government by the Constitution to a private central bank. It was going to be called the Third Bank of the United States. Such a fundamental change to the nation’s economy should have required a Constitutional Amendment. But earlier that same year, there had been a huge fight to ratify another Amendment, the 16th Amendment authorizing the income tax, and there is good reason to suspect that the 16th Amendment actually failed ratification even though the payers of that income tax were told otherwise.

    “I think if you were to go back and and try to find and review the ratification of the 16th amendment, which was the internal revenue, the income tax, I think if you went back and examined that carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment.” – U.S. District Court Judge James C. Fox, Sullivan Vs. United States, 2003.

    Getting yet another Amendment ratified against such opposition, or worse, having to cheat one through, would be extremely difficult.

    Then there was a problem with the proposed name, “Third Bank of the United States”, as it reminded people of the predations of the First and Second Bank of the United States.

    “Gentlemen! I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States. I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, (bringing his fist down on the table) I will rout you out!” — Andrew Jackson, shortly before ending the charter of the Second Bank of the United States. From the original minutes of the Philadelphia committee of citizens sent to meet with President Jackson (February 1834), according to Andrew Jackson and the Bank of the United States (1928) by Stan V. Henkels

    Shortly after President Jackson (the only American President to actually pay off the National Debt) ended the Second Bank of the United States, there was an attempted assassination.

    But I digress.

    Faced with the possibility that a new Amendment to transfer money creation from the US Government to a privately owned bank might fail and fail badly, and with the name “Third Bank of the United States” already leading to opposition to the plan, the plotters did an end run around the Constitution, passing the Federal Reserve act over Christmas vacation when the members of Congress opposed to the bill would be away. The name of the new bank was then changed to “The Federal Reserve.” But, it is a private bank, no more “Federal” than Federal Express. From that moment on all currency would enter circulation as a loan at interest.

    “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit.We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.” — Woodrow Wilson 1919

    Ironically enough, this was the very system of banking the American Revolution was fought to free us from.

    “The refusal of King George 3rd to allow the colonies to operate an honest money system, which freed the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, was probably the prime cause of the revolution.” — Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father

    Starting in 1913, public schools stopped teaching about King George’s Currency Act, which ordered the American colonies to conduct business only using bank notes borrowed at interest from the Bank of England, and since then American students are taught that the revolution was about Tea Parties and Stamp Acts, lest the more clever students wonder how we ended up back in the same banking system that led to the first revolution.

    The Founding Fathers understood how dangerous such banking systems are, and I will try to teach you here what the public schools are forbidden to let you know. The Federal Reserve system is a deliberate trap, to enslave a population to unpayable debt in order to control and exploit them, and here is how it works.

    Before any commerce can happen, currency must go into circulation. Someone has to borrow it from that private central bank. The borrower can be government, a business, another bank, or ordinary citizens using credit cards, car loans, or mortgages. For the purposes of clarity, we will use a single dollar to represent that initial borrowing from the central bank. For the purpose of this illustration, “borrower” refers collectively to the entire American nation.

    That dollar now enters circulation, passing from the original borrower to others, as payment for labor, in exchange for raw materials, as taxes, and so forth. Round and round it goes, passing from hand to hand, yet it is still a note borrowed from the Central Bank and it is still accruing interest. That Central Bank note, or (in the United States) Federal Reserve Note, is not a unit of value, it is a unit of debt.

    At some point, that dollar is repaid to the Central Bank. The Central Bank then demands the interest. In our case, a nickle. But there is a problem. That nickle doesn’t exist and it never did. It is imaginary.

    So now the borrower has to borrow another dollar, out of which he takes a nickle to pay for the interest on the first dollar.

    The rest of that second borrowed dollar now goes into circulation, but this time, only 95 cents is in circulation to pass from borrower to vendor to employee to grocery store to government, then back to the Central Bank.

    The borrower goes back to the Central Bank to repay that second dollar, but only has 95 cents, plus he owes that imaginary five cents interest as well, or ten cents.

    Once more the borrower has to borrow a new dollar from the Central Bank, only this time he has to take a dime out of that new dollar to hand bank to the banker. The borrower walks out of the bank with only 90 cents to put into circulation, while still owing a whole dollar plus five cents interest.

    The cycle keeps repeating over and over with each new loan having to return more and more back to the Central bank as accumulated interest.

    With each cycle the Central Banks gets richer while there is less and less currency available for commerce. People have to tighten their belts. Works are let go. Sales slow down. “Austerity” is imposed.

    Eventually, a point is reached where as much accumulated interest is owed as the money being borrowed. So the borrower now has to borrow twice as much from the Central Bank merely to have the same actual currency in circulation as when they started. The Central Bank system only operates as long as the borrower is willing to go deeper and deeper into debt, and debt slavery. This is what makes the Central Bank scheme a pyramid system. It works only so long as ever-larger new generations of borrowers can be found to allow new currency to enter circulation, out of which the interest on the older loans is paid. And of course, by design, the debt can never ever be paid off. Once that first paper note is loaned into circulation, total debt will always exceed total currency. The system is designed that way, to keep you in debt, to keep you a slave to the bankers.

    This is the reason that every nation on Earth with such a Central Bank is now drowning in debt. The Federal Reserve, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the European Central Bank, are all built on this same system. This is why nations that refuse such banking systems are made war on.

    “Either the application for renewal of the charter is granted, or the United States will find itself involved in a most disastrous war.” — Nathan Mayor Rothschild, angered at the refusal of Congress to renew the charter for the First Bank of the United States in 1811. Congress stood firm and Britain, goaded to “recolonize” America by the Bank of England, headed at the time by Lionel de Rothschild, launched the war of 1812.”If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become endurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.” — The London Times responding to Lincoln’s decision to issue government Greenbacks to finance the Civil War, rather that agree to private banker’s loans at 30% interest. Following Lincoln’s assassination, the Greenbacks were taken out of circulation.

    On June 4, 1963, President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order 11110, which authorized the US Treasury to issue “United States Notes, backed by silver, so that the American people would not have to borrow federal Reserve Notes at interest. Five months later Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas Texas, the US Notes were taken out of circulation, and John J. McCloy, President of the Chase Manhattan Bank, and President of the World Bank, was named to the Warren Commission, presumably to make certain the financial dimensions behind the assassination were never made public.

    And what did it cost the Central Banks to wield such power over nations? Paper and ink, or today a few keystrokes on a keyboard. In fact the practices of the Central Bank would be felonies under the United States Coinage Act of 1792, which declared debasement of the gold and silver-backed currency of the United States a death penalty offence.

    The Central Bank knows that those pieces of paper with ink are worthless. But while the Central Bank can just create those paper notes out of thin air (legalized counterfeiting), you may not. In order to pay that ever-growing debt you have to do what you are told to do by those who have some of those pieces of paper to hand out tell you to do. Work long hours. Invade a foreign nation that refuses to have a Private Central Bank. Torture innocent people to death to find weapons of mass destruction that do not exist to justify a war. Compromise your morals and integrity. Perform sexual favors. Whatever the purveyors of those pieces of paper want, you must do. That paper note is your slave chain.

    Even worse, as the imaginary debt piles higher and there is less and less currency in circulation, people start to become desperate to obtain those pieces of paper with colored ink on them to pay off that debt they have been tricked into believing they owe to the private central bankers. Over time, more and more moral accomodations become accepted by society in exchange for the acquisition of those pieces of paper with ink on them. Manufacturers start cutting corners, producing shoddy products that break and wear out. Food companies start using more cheap fillers. Pharmaceutical companies produce medicines of dubious efficacy and definite harm. Society turns brutal and predates on itself. Manufacturers come to want bad products that break easilyso people will buy more. The medical establishment comes to desire a sickly population because they cannot make money off of a healthy people. Food companies add addictive chemicals to food to make people buy and eat more. Wall Street comes to see fraud as a legitimate business tactic. Eventually immorality and unethical business behavior becomes the accepted social norm. Under the mounting illusion of debt society drifts into outright criminality perpetrated by everyone against everyone. From there it is a short step to seeing war and conquest of other nations’ weath as the only remaining solution to the debt problem. In short, the predations of private central banking lure society into trading what is best in human nature in exchange for those paper and ink tickets until civilization itself is at risk.

    Private Central Banking is not about banking, or even about money. It is about Control. Private Central Banking is about rule by enforced servitude to artificially created debt. No different from other hoaxes played by the rich on the poor, such as Rule by Divine Right, or Rule by Chattel Ownership of your Body (slavery). As a human civilization we have outgrown these hoaxes and realize they are illegitimate forms of governance. So too shall it be with Rule by Debt. Those previous systems only worked as long as the subjugated population believed that those systems were real; the way the world was supposed to be. When the people broke free of the slavery of belief, those forms of enslavement collapsed. For the few to feel rich, everyone else must be poor. As the availability of currency declines, it does not matter how hard people are willing to work; there must inevitably be homeless, joblessness, hunger, and wars of conquest to “balance the books.”

    Modern banking is not a science. It is a religion, simply a set of arbitrary rules and assumptions that favor the masters of that belief system, which we are brainwashed in school to think is something tangible and real.

    It is time to stop, while we still can.

    We have outgrown Rule by Divine Right and recognize slavery as inherently wrong.

    Now is the time for the next step in our societies evolution in which the money must serve the people, rather than the people serve the money.

    Central Banks are a failed experiment. Look at the devastation of Europe, or your own home town and you will see it.

    The common enemy of all humankind are Private Central Banks issuing the public currency as a loan at interest.

     


  • RNC BROKERED CONVENTIONS 1912-2016

    RNC BROKERED CONVENTIONS 1912-2016

    Presidents are Selected, Not Elected

    2016 THE GOP POLITICO ESTABLISHMENT IS HELL BENT ON SELECTING THE NEXT PRESIDENT NOMINATED  WITH A BROKERED REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION (RNC).

    SECRETARY OF DEFENSE DONALD RUMSFELD NOTED THAT

    “WE KNOW THERE ARE SOME THINGS WE DO NOT KNOW.

    BUT THERE ARE ALSO UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS

    THE ONES WE DON’T KNOW WE DON’T KNOW.”

    ————————————————————————-

    INDEED, WHAT IS A (RCN) BROKERED CONVENTION?

    2016 IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS A PRIVATE ORGANIZATION GOVERNED BY ITS OWN RULES AND BYLAWS,

    2016  ALL WHICH CAN BE CHANGED ACCORDING TO MECHANISMS PRESCRIBED IN THE PARTY’S RULES.

    2016 A BROKERED CONVENTION IS WHEN PARTY OFFICIALS BROKER OR NEGOTIATE BACKROOM CONSENSUS WITH DELEGATES, OR CHANGE THE NOMINATION RULES TO FACILITATE THE SELECTION OF PRESIDENTIAL AND VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES.

    ——————————————————————————–

    THE 2016 REPUBLICAN NATIONAL BROKERED CONVENTION

    AMERICA’S ENTIRE PATCHWORK OF ARCANE PRIMARY RULES SHALL BE BROKERED IN BACKROOM DEALS BY 112-MEMBER RULES ON A COMMITTEES FROM A PRIVATE ORGANIZATION GOVERNED BY CHANGING ITS OWN RULES AND BYLAWS?

    WHITTLE DOWN TRUMP’S  DELEGATES

    AND,  THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION’S  112-MEMBER RULES PANEL, WHICH COMPRISES TWO OFFICIALS FROM EACH STATE AND TERRITORY SHALL MAKE UP THEIR OWN RULES AS THEY GO ALONG AND SELECT THE NEXT PRIMARY CANDIDATE FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN BACKROOM DEALS

    ————————————————————————————

    THE ONES WE DON’T KNOW WE DON’T KNOW

    WHAT HAPPENED AT THE 1912 BROKERED REPUBLICAN CONVENTION?

    “THE RESULTING FLOOR FIGHT IN THE APTLY NAMED CHICAGO COLISEUM LIVED UP TO THE PREDICTION OF THE IRISH-AMERICAN HUMORIST FINLEY PETER DUNNE

    THAT THE 1912 CONTESTED CONVENTION WOULD BE “A COMBYNATION IV TH’ CHICAGO FIRE, SAINT BARTHOLOMEW’S MASSACREE, THE BATTLE IV TH’ BOYNE, TH’ LIFE IV JESSE JAMES, AN’ TH’ NIGHT IV TH’ BIG WIND.”

    THE NOMINATION BATTLE BETWEEN THE TWO MEN WAS BRUTAL, PERSONAL

    AND ULTIMATELY FATAL TO THE PARTY’S CHANCES FOR VICTORY IN NOVEMBER.

    ————————————————————————————-

    WHAT HAPPENED AT THE 1912 BROKERED REPUBLICAN CONVENTION?

    1912 ROOSEVELT HANDILY DEFEATED TAFT IN THE PRIMARIES, WINNING NINE STATES TO TAFT’S TWO, ACQUIRING 278 DELEGATES TO HIS OPPONENT’S 48 DELEGATES ALONG WAY.

    1912 ROOSEVELT DISCOVERED THAT HIS 571 DELEGATES, HIGHER THAN THE REQUIRED 540 TO SECURE THE NOMINATION, HAD MYSTERIOUSLY GONE DOWN BY 72 DELEGATES

     1912 AFTER THE STATE PARTY CHAIRMEN FOR ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, TEXAS AND WASHINGTON WITHDREW THEIR SUPPORT AND DIRECTED THEIR DELEGATES TO SIT IN THE TAFT ‘SECTION’ OF THE COLISEUM.

    1912 WHAT FOLLOWED NEXT IN THE CHICAGO COLISEUM HAS BEEN COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL NATIONAL CONVENTIONAL IN U.S. HISTORY.

    PARTY OFFICIALS, WHO WERE ALMOST UNANIMOUSLY ALIGNED WITH ESTABLISHMENT CHOICE TAFT,

    BROKERED BACKROOM DEALS WITH DELEGATES FROM 36 NON-PRIMARY STATES TO WHITTLE DOWN ROOSEVELT’S DELEGATES.

    AS A REPUBLICAN OBSERVED DURING THE CAMPAIGN: “WE CAN’T ELECT TAFT & WE MUST DO ANYTHING TO ELECT WILSON SO AS TO DEFEAT ROOSEVELT.”

    ——————————————————————————

    WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN CLEVELAND DURING AND AFTER A  CONTESTED REPUBLICAN PRIMARY (RNC) 2016?

    Donald Trump warned on Wednesday that his supporters would respond with “riots” if he fails to secure the nomination at July’s convention in Cleveland.

    “I think you’d have riots,” Trump told CNN on Wednesday. “I think you’d have riots. I’m representing a tremendous many, many millions of people.”

    Far from idle chatter, Trump’s words come as escalating protests from left-wing activists, heated responses from his supporters, and increasing tensions within the GOP over his candidacy are raising fears that the convention could devolve into chaos.

    Cleveland is reportedly working to procure 2,000 sets of riot gear equipment for its officers.

    ————————————————————

    Behind My Back | Trump is an Informed Prognosticator

    www.behindmyback.org/2016/03/…/trump-is-an-informed-prognosticat

    Mar 23, 2016 – Trump opined that the Paris and Brussels attacks are “just the beginning.” Trump … “I’m a pretty good prognosticator. …. thinkprogress.org/…

    ————————————————————————-

    PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES ARE SELECTED BY AN ELITE PRIVATE ORGANIZATION (RCN)

    AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES ARE NOT ELECTED BY MILLIONS OF WE THE PEOPLE.

    NOW YOU KNOW WHY PRESIDENT FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT SAID

    “PRESIDENTS ARE SELECTED,  NOT ELECTED”
    ————————————————————————-

    1912 Republican Convention | History | Smithsonian

    www.smithsonianmag.com/…/1912-republican-convention-…

    SmithsonianWilliam

    Howard Taft and Theodore Roosevelt had once been friends. But when the … (Barry Goldwater supporters at the 1964 Republican National Convention.) Truman …. Otherwise, he said, the contested delegates should not vote. BOTH HE AND TAFT LOST TO THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE, WOODROW WILSON, THAT NOVEMBER.

    1912 REPUBLICAN CONVENTION

    Return of the Rough Rider

    William Howard Taft and Theodore Roosevelt had once been friends.

     BUT WHEN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY MET IN CHICAGO TO CHOOSE ITS PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN JUNE 1912,

     THE NOMINATION BATTLE BETWEEN THE TWO MEN WAS BRUTAL, PERSONAL

    AND ULTIMATELY FATAL TO THE PARTY’S CHANCES FOR VICTORY IN NOVEMBER.

    TAFT DECLARED ROOSEVELT TO BE “THE GREATEST MENACE TO OUR INSTITUTIONS THAT WE HAVE HAD IN A LONG TIME.”

    ROOSEVELT SAW TAFT AS THE AGENT OF “THE FORCES OF REACTION AND OF POLITICAL CROOKEDNESS.

    ” THE RESULTING FLOOR FIGHT IN THE APTLY NAMED CHICAGO COLISEUM LIVED UP TO THE PREDICTION OF THE IRISH-AMERICAN HUMORIST FINLEY PETER DUNNE

     THAT THE 1912 CONVENTION WOULD BE “A COMBYNATION IV TH’ CHICAGO FIRE, SAINT BARTHOLOMEW’S MASSACREE, THE BATTLE IV TH’ BOYNE, TH’ LIFE IV JESSE JAMES, AN’ TH’ NIGHT IV TH’ BIG WIND.”

    THE CONVENTION WAS NOT ARMAGEDDON, BUT TO OBSERVERS IT SEEMED A CLOSE SECOND. SHOUTS OF “LIAR” AND CRIES OF “STEAMROLLER” PUNCTUATED THE PROCEEDINGS.

    ———————————————————————————-

    TO THIS DAY, MANY REMAIN SHOCKED AT THE AUDACIOUS MACHINATIONS OF PARTY OFFICIALS TO SECURE THE NOMINATION FOR TAFT

    —————————————————————————————-


    For years, the tensions within the GRAND OLD PARTY had been building over the issue of government regulation. During his presidency, Roosevelt had advocated a “Square Deal” between capital and labor in American society. By the time he left the White House in March 1909, Roosevelt believed that the federal government must do more to supervise large corporations, improve the lot of women and children who worked long hours for low wages in industry, and conserve natural resources. “When I say that I am for the square deal, I mean not merely that I stand for fair play under the present rules of the game, but that I stand for having those rules changed so as to work for a more substantial equality of opportunity and of reward for equally good service,” he said in August 1910. Roosevelt was especially critical of the state and federal courts for overturning reform legislation as unconstitutional, and he said that such decisions were “fundamentally hostile to every species of real popular government.”

    Roosevelt’s burgeoning crusade for more active government reflected his loss of faith in William Howard Taft, whom the former Rough Rider had chosen as his successor. As president, Taft had sided with the conservative wing of the party, which had opposed Roosevelt’s reforms at every turn. For his part, Taft believed Roosevelt had stretched the power of the executive branch too far. As a lawyer and former federal judge, Taft had nothing but disdain for his predecessor’s jaundiced view of the judiciary. “The regret which he certainly expressed that the courts had the power to set aside statutes,” wrote the president, “was an attack upon our system at the very point where I think it is the strongest.”

    Tensions deepened in 1912, when Roosevelt began ADVOCATING THE RECALL OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS THROUGH POPULAR VOTE. With the courts tamed as an enemy to reform, ROOSEVELT THEN WOULD PRESS FORWARD “TO SEE THAT THE WAGE-WORKER, THE SMALL PRODUCER, THE ORDINARY CONSUMER, SHALL GET THEIR FAIR SHARE OF THE BENEFIT OF BUSINESS PROSPERITY.” To enact his program, Roosevelt signaled that he would accept another term as president and seek the nomination of the Republican Party.

    THESE AMBITIONS REVEALED, TAFT AND HIS FELLOW CONSERVATIVES DEEMED ROOSEVELT A DANGEROUS RADICAL. ONCE IN POWER FOR A THIRD TERM, THEY SAID, ROOSEVELT WOULD BE A PERPETUAL CHIEF EXECUTIVE. ROOSEVELT HAD BECOME THE MOST DANGEROUS MAN IN AMERICAN HISTORY, SAID TAFT, “BECAUSE OF HIS HOLD UPON THE LESS INTELLIGENT VOTERS AND THE DISCONTENTED.” THE SOCIAL JUSTICE THAT ROOSEVELT SOUGHT INVOLVED, IN TAFT’S OPINION, “A FORCED DIVISION OF PROPERTY, AND THAT MEANS SOCIALISM.”

    Taft dominated the Republican Party machinery in many states, but a few state primaries gave the voters a chance to express themselves. The president and his former friend took to the hustings, and across the country in the spring of 1912 the campaign rhetoric escalated.

    Roosevelt described Taft as a “puzzlewit,”

    while the president labeled Roosevelt a “honeyfugler.”

     Driven to distraction under Roosevelt’s attacks, Taft said in Massachusetts, “I was a man of straw; but I have been a man of straw long enough; every man who has blood in his body and who has been misrepresented as I have is forced to fight.”

     A delighted Roosevelt supporter commented that “Taft certainly made a great mistake when he began to ‘fight back.’ He has too big a paunch to have much of a punch, while a free-for-all, slap-bang, kick-him-in-the-belly, is just nuts for the chief.”

    ROOSEVELT WON ALL THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES AGAINST TAFT EXCEPT IN MASSACHUSETTS.

    TAFT DOMINATED THE CAUCUSES THAT SENT DELEGATES TO THE STATE CONVENTIONS.

    WHEN THE VOTING WAS DONE, NEITHER MAN HAD THE 540 DELEGATES NEEDED TO WIN.

    ROOSEVELT HAD 411,

     TAFT HAD 367 AND MINOR CANDIDATES HAD 46,

     LEAVING 254 UP FOR GRABS. THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, DOMINATED BY THE TAFT FORCES,

     AWARDED 235 DELEGATES TO THE PRESIDENT AND 19 TO ROOSEVELT, THEREBY ENSURING TAFT’S RENOMINATION.

     ROOSEVELT BELIEVED HIMSELF ENTITLED TO 72 DELEGATES FROM ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, TEXAS AND WASHINGTON THAT HAD BEEN GIVEN TO TAFT.

    Firm in his conviction that the nomination was being stolen from him,

    Roosevelt decided to break the precedent that kept the candidates away from the national convention and lead his forces to CHICAGO in person.

     The night before the proceedings Roosevelt told cheering supporters that there was “a great moral issue” at stake and he should have “sixty to eighty lawfully elected delegates” added to his total.

     Otherwise, he said, the contested delegates should not vote.

    Roosevelt ended his speech declaring: “FEARLESS OF THE FUTURE; UNHEEDING OF OUR INDIVIDUAL FATES; WITH UNFLINCHING HEARTS AND UNDIMMED EYES; WE STAND AT ARMAGEDDON, AND WE BATTLE FOR THE LORD!”

    One pro-Taft observer said that “a tension pervaded the Coliseum breathing the general feeling that a parting of the ways was imminent.”

     William Allen White, the famous Kansas editor, looked down from the press tables “INTO THE HUMAN CALDRON THAT WAS BOILING ALL AROUND ME.”

    On the first day, the Roosevelt forces lost a test vote on the temporary chairman. Taft’s man, Elihu Root, prevailed.

     ROOSEVELT’S SUPPORTERS TRIED TO HAVE 72 OF THEIR DELEGATES SUBSTITUTED FOR TAFT PARTISANS ON THE LIST OF THOSE OFFICIALLY ALLOWED TO TAKE PART IN THE CONVENTION.

    WHEN THAT INITIATIVE FAILED, ROOSEVELT KNEW THAT HE COULD NOT WIN, AND HAD EARLIER REJECTED THE IDEA OF A COMPROMISE THIRD CANDIDATE.

    “I’LL NAME THE COMPROMISE CANDIDATE. HE’LL BE ME. I’LL NAME THE COMPROMISE PLATFORM. IT WILL BE OUR PLATFORM.

    “WITH THAT, HE BOLTED FROM THE PARTY AND INSTRUCTED HIS DELEGATES NOT TO TAKE PART IN THE VOTING;

     

    1912 Republican Convention

    Return of the Rough Rider

    image: http://thumbs.media.smithsonianmag.com//filer/convention_aug08_2_631.jpg__800x600_q85_crop.jpgRoosevelt Campaign Speech
    Theodore Roosevelt giving a campaign speech. (Bettmann/Corbis)

    TAFT EASILY WON ON THE FIRST BALLOT.

     ROOSEVELT, MEANWHILE, SAID HE WAS GOING “TO NOMINATE FOR THE PRESIDENCY A PROGRESSIVE ON A PROGRESSIVE PLATFORM.”

    IN AUGUST, ROOSEVELT DID JUST THAT, RUNNING AS THE CANDIDATE OF THE PROGRESSIVE PARTY.

    BOTH HE AND TAFT LOST TO THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE, WOODROW WILSON, THAT NOVEMBER.

    YET, FOR REPUBLICANS WHO SUPPORTED TAFT, THE ELECTORAL DEFEAT WAS WORTH THE IDEOLOGICAL VICTORY.

     AS A REPUBLICAN OBSERVED DURING THE CAMPAIGN: “WE CAN’T ELECT TAFT & WE MUST DO ANYTHING TO ELECT WILSON SO AS TO DEFEAT ROOSEVELT.”

    Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1912-republican-convention-855607/#uzV1GJQpW4pfCASe.99

    —————————————————————–
    TODAY, I AM  SHOCKED AT THE DOCUMENTED ABUSE AND THE AUDACIOUS ARCANE MACHINATIONS THAT THE  RNC PARTY OFFICIALS USED TO SELECT AND SECURE THE NOMINATION OF A PUPPET PRESIDENT IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1912.

    “RIOTS AREN’T NECESSARILY A BAD THING IF IT MEANS IT’S BECAUSE IT’S SITTING THERE AND FIGHTING THE FACT THAT OUR ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS GONE CORRUPT AND DECIDED TO IGNORE THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE,” TRUMP SUPPORTER SCOTTIE NEIL HUGHES TOLD CNN WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON.

    ———————————————————————–

    “we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns-the ones we don’t know we don’t know.”

    INDEED, RIOTS AREN’T NECESSARILY A BAD THING IN 2016 CONSIDERING

    NOW WE KNOW  IN FACT THAT OUR ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS BEEN CORRUPT  SINCE 1912 AND DECIDED  100 YEARS AGO TO IGNORE THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE”

    ——————————————————————

    The press,  the News media , is therefore of the utmost importance in a representative democracy. EXCEPT WHEN THE MAJORITY (CNN AND FOX NEWS)  ARE IN COLLUSION WITH ANTI-TRUMP ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC PARTY

    Carlyle saw the press as instrumental to the birth and growth of democracy, spreading facts and opinions and sparking revolution against tyranny.

    INDEED,  ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, RIOTS AREN’T NECESSARILY A BAD THING IN 2016