.. 
The Reuter’s news service reports on March 14, 2002 that US President Bush has pledged to dole out US$5 Billion for nations that embrace economic and human rights reforms (reforms which are acceptable to the US of course as the main stipulation). 
. 
EDITORS NOTE:  Where is the money coming from?  They recently claimed the US Government was running a large deficit and that Social Security was going bankrupt?  Now they are giving away US tax payer money as if it were candy.  Why not put $5 Billion Dollars into the Social Security fund, or does some politician think it a better idea to give away US taxpayer money to Somalia or Bangladesh instead (not that I have anything against these countries, by the way)? 
. 
http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20020314_357.html 
. 
Also, in the unbelievable but true corner regarding government and your tax money: 
. 
American Express Cancels Arkansas State Govt. Company Cards  
Thursday March 14, 2002 6:20 PM  
. 
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) - American Express sent a message to the state of Arkansas recently: Sorry, card rejected.   In a sweeping action that came without warning, the company suspended all 6,400 of the state employee corporate cards because of unpaid charges totaling more than $800,000, half of that overdue at least four months.    
. 
Holders of the cards - from staffers in the governor's office to low-level administrators - found out about the action at restaurants, hotels and airports. Some were stranded, and one University of Arkansas official had to find another way to buy lunch for someone he was trying to recruit to the faculty.  Cards in good standing were reinstated within days of the Jan. 30 suspension, but the experience has a state committee re-examining the special accounts that let cardholders charge personal purchases as well as those for state business.  
. 
EDITORS NOTE:  Let’s get this straight.  I am a state government employee in Arkansas, and because of that I get to have an American Express Card issued by the State of Arkansas, AND I get to charge personal stuff on it?  So, does this mean taxpayers in Arkansas have to pay the bill every time a courthouse secretary visits Walmart?  Hmmm. 
. 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-1585411,00.html 
. 
. 
As we reported earlier, the US eyes contingency plans for abandoning bases in Saudi Arabia amid growing pressures from the Saudi Government (that the US should leave A.S.A.P).   Read the most recent on-line story below (March 2002), which was actually taken from the New York Times:   
. 
http://www.iht.com/articles/50821.html 
. 
. 
Al-Qaeda Has U.S. Prisoners, Ex-spy Chief Says  
NewsMax.com Wires - Thursday, March 14, 2002  
. 
WASHINGTON – A former Pakistani spy-aster with links to the Taliban claims that al-Qaeda has captured American prisoners in eastern Afghanistan, forcing U.S. troops to end the siege of their stronghold and withdraw.  U.S. officials say the claim is false. 
. 
Talking to United Press International from his home in Islamabad, Gen. Hamid Gul, the former chief of Pakistan's main spy agency, Inter Services Intelligence, said the United States sent some Americans to Shahikot, dressed as Afghans.  Shahikot is the mountainous region of eastern Afghanistan where U.S. forces and their Afghan allies taking part in Operation Anaconda have been bombing and fighting several hundred al-Qaeda and Taliban guerrillas holed up in cave complexes since March 1, 2002.  According to Gul, the Americans sent to infiltrate the mountain strongholds could speak the local language of Pashto, and some even had beards.   The idea was to slip through the Taliban defenses into the al-Qaeda hideouts in the mountains. But they were detected and captured.  Gul said this forced the Americans to make a deal with al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters and withdraw their troops. 
. 
EDITORS NOTE:  The US has recently retreated from the mountain fighting campaign, so therefore in the words of Mr. Ripley - Believe it, or Not. 
. 
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/3/13/173356.shtml 
. 
. 
Also in the Noticeably Absent from Major US News Corner: 
. 
. 
U.S. Skirts Law on Terror - Monday, March 11, 2002 
By Rajiv Chandrasekaran, The Washington Post  
.  
Since Sept. 11, the U.S. government has secretly transported dozens of people suspected of links to terrorists to countries other than the United States, bypassing extradition procedures and legal formalities, according to Western diplomats and intelligence sources.  The suspects have been taken to countries, including Egypt and Jordan, whose intelligence services have close ties to the CIA and where they can be subjected to interrogation tactics - including torture and threats to their families - that are illegal in the United States, the sources said. In some cases, U.S. intelligence agents remain closely involved in the interrogation, the sources said.  U.S. involvement in seizing terrorism suspects in third countries and shipping them with few or no legal proceedings to the United States or other countries - known as rendition - is not new.  This was a U.S. deal all along, the senior official said. Egypt just provided the formalities. 
. 
EDITORS NOTE: Lets see now.  Israel is an ally of the US and Jordan has recently stated they are with or will support Iraq (along with Lebanon) if the US decides to extend the war on terrorism with regards to Iraq possibly creating another axis of evil (of the countries that begin with the letter I or L).  Yet, the US is flying folks from Afghanistan to Jordan (free of charge of course) so the Jordan secret police (an ally of the CIA, or so we are told) can torture them (which is something would not be able to do on US soil, which includes the Naval Base Jail recently set up in Cuba).  I am getting very confused, but I suppose it must make sense to someone.   
. 
http://www.iht.com/articles/50848.html 
. 
. 
THEY SAY that the US recession is ending, but is that the end of the story?  The following editorial from the London Times explains some interesting points to consider: 
. 
AMERICA PAYS BECAUSE ALL THE WORLD LOVES A DOLLAR 
By William Rees-Mogg – March 11, 2002 
.   
In all countries, globalization can be a cruel discipline. It destroys as it creates. It may produce the greatest happiness of the greatest number, but it is natural for communities to fight for their own survival, particularly in their home markets.  Even if the world recovery continues, the United States is faced with the loss of manufacturing capacity, because the dollar is so highly valued relative to other currencies. In the case of steel itself - US costs seem to be about 25 per cent higher than the world average. That is why so many US steel companies are losing money or actually insolvent.  
Many American costs are not at all competitive with those of the developing Asian countries, such as China. The Chinese have completely taken over some low-technology markets in which they have the largest advantage, including toys and bicycles, and are making headway in more sophisticated markets. Other Asian countries, including Japan, have a large share of automobiles and electronic goods.  
. 
Europe also has a high-cost economy, but the exchange rate between the euro and the dollar favors European exporters. The euro fell about 25 per cent against the dollar in its first two years.   How can markets over-value the dollar by so much? The reason is that the US has for a long time had a strongly favorable capital balance. The inflow of capital has kept the dollar well above the exchange rate, which would have been justified by the current account on its own.  
. 
The result was that the American external deficit widened, from a sustainable level to one, which never looked to be sustainable. In 1996 the deficit was a little more than 1 per cent of the US gross domestic product; by the year 2000 it had reached 4 per cent. That was too high in itself; the rate of increase was explosive, doubling every two years. No economy can live with that.  
Certainly, the US Administration would not welcome a sudden drying up of this inflow of capital; that would be damaging to the US economy. The fall in liquidity would be likely to cause a recession, and the fall in the dollar would raise prices. Yet the US cannot afford to see a further increase in the deficit, with its implications in industrial competitiveness.  The currency problem can be summarized in this way. Capital inflows have caused a long-term over-valuation of the US dollar. This has resulted in excessive and presumably unsustainable deficits. The high dollar has made parts of US industry uncompetitive, and led to pressure for tariff protection.  In essence, the problem of the over-strong dollar looks at present to be insoluble.  
. 
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,482-232364,00.html  
. 
. 
READERS WRITE IN:  
. 
. 
John, I was watching ABC news tonight, they were saying the government has outlawed wire transfers over $3000 to foreign banks, or that's what it sounds like to me, of course, and this is to stop terrorism.  That’s how it was passed. Do you know if it is true?  
. 
EDITORS REPLY:  The only thing I am aware of is greater record keeping and scrutiny on wire transfers over US$3,000 – which is really not something new.  I had in fact reported a few years ago that the US Treasury Dept. had put new directives in place some time ago with respect to transactions over US$3,000 domestically (as opposed to the US$10,000 limit as most people think).  So, getting back to your question, banks are now required to get the complete name, address, telephone number and all such nonsense with regards to the sender of any wire transfer over US$3,000 (actually over US$2,999 if you want to get technical).  Such information must be included on the wire transfer details or if it is not, the receiving bank is supposed to reject it and send it back.   
. 
With regards to outlawing wire transfers of any amount, unless the people at the US Treasury have lost their respective minds altogether (which is a possibility by the way), such a measure would for certain bring international business to a stand still.  If you think about it, all the computers made in China, products from Mexico, etc., etc., etc. – banning wire transfers would make a number of people think twice about doing business with Americans or American Companies if they could not get paid in a timely fashion.  Perhaps it may get to the point that you will have to take a lie detector test and be subject to a skin probe looking for prickly heat just to cash a check at your local bank.  I hope not, but things seem to be moving in that direction.   For the time being however, you can still complete bank wire transfers for amounts above and beyond US$3,000.     In addition, there is more than one way to transfer money without major hassles or an act of congress, but I will not get into that here.  Just keep in mind, the more you oppress people, the harder they try to figure out ways around it.  After all, America was founded by a bunch of rebels refusing to pay a tea tax (among other things) was it not?  The so-called American spirit (and all that it entails) is alive and well, it just happens to be alive and well – elsewhere.      
. 
. 
A Client Has sent in the Following:  
. 
One of my colleagues in our foundation has asked about the implications of this article: 
.   
http://money.cnn.com/2002/03/08/taxes/taxes_irs/  
.   
Would you mind addressing this issue?  I don't think it affects us since we wouldn't pay our own bills via a credit card, just access cash: 
. 
. 
ANOTHER READER sent in the following link and asks for my comments.  The article refers to the efforts of the IRS to try and catch what it deems are tax cheats by attacking credit card companies such as American Express and MasterCard.  The reasoning or game plan is that since they cannot get access to bank account information in many jurisdictions that they can then possibly try and find out names of US citizens who might have or be using an offshore credit card (or I should say more correctly a credit card such as Visa or MasterCard issued by an offshore bank).  The link to the on-line story is below with our reply below it.  
. 
IRS Seeks Tax Cheats Through Offshore Credit-Card Records  
By JOHN D. MCKINNON - Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL 
. 
http://www.offshorebusiness.com/message_board_detail.asp?id=2390&page=1  
. 
EDITORS REPLY:  First and foremost, this is very old news.  Such a story first broke in major US newspapers over one year ago, so this is nothing new.   I would like to answer this in depth because I think it worthwhile to do so.  Also, there are some sections of the on-line article that I find most interesting, which I would like to comment on as well. 
. 
I have reprinted sections of the News Article here (see my comments below): 
. 
Uncle Sam is about to start peeking into credit-card accounts in search of thousands of Americans taking part in a fun-in-the-sun tax-avoidance scam that is part of a $70 billion-a-year drain on federal revenue.   
After months of haggling, the Internal Revenue Service and the Justice Department are close to an agreement with American Express Co. to turn over records from customers who pay their bills through banks in the Bahamas, the Cayman Islands and other tax havens, people familiar with the matter said. A second company, MasterCard International Ltd., also is in negotiations, MasterCard spokeswoman Sharon Gamsin said. 
. 
The IRS, which declined to comment on the matter, is trying to identify and possibly prosecute cheats who use a simple and apparently increasingly popular scheme.   Taxpayers involved in the scam face big trouble, including back taxes, stiff penalties and possibly criminal charges. Thousands of taxpayers -- possibly tens of thousands -- are believed to have taken advantage of offshore accounts and credit cards. 
.  
The scheme has been widely marketed on the Internet and elsewhere by lawyers and banks with offshore branches, often with a pitch that U.S. residents can skip paying taxes and avoid detection. One IRS consultant, Washington lawyer Jack Blum, estimated in 2000 that illegal offshore tax shelters cost the government $70 billion a year. Much of that involves individual taxpayers, but it is unclear how much involves credit-card holders. 
. 
The credit-card scam has been going on for years. The IRS was slow to catch on, but a series of investigations in the mid-1990s revealed how it worked.  All the IRS lacked were the names of tax cheats -- information it couldn't get from offshore banks in Caribbean tax havens because they refuse to share financial data with the U.S.   So the IRS turned to U.S. credit-card networks, which were no more eager to turn over records. The IRS went to federal court in Miami in 2000 to ask a judge to force American Express and MasterCard to turn over records related to cards issued by offshore banks or were paid for from funds drawn on them. 
. 
"We know from our experience that we've had consistent abuses," an IRS official who asked to remain anonymous said at the time. "Our experience indicates there are a lot of U.S. persons doing business and utilizing banks in those countries. We expect a number -- whether 5,000, 50,000 or 100,000, we don't know. We expect it to go into the thousands.   
. 
U.S. District Judge Adalberto Jordan granted the request in October 2000. Thus began a long negotiation between the government and the credit-card companies. The IRS wanted broad disclosure, while the credit-card companies sought a narrow scope.  The government's initial request covered 1998 and 1999 and involved Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas and the Cayman Islands, but the IRS is likely to expand its scrutiny to additional years, other tax havens and other card companies.  
. 
Law-enforcement officials say offshore credit and debit cards are so secure that they are effectively safer than cash. The cards typically are imprinted with meaningless account names and in some cases just numbers.  Account holders can use phony names, so even signed card receipts don't offer any direct connection to a taxpayer. Because of their security advantages, offshore cards increasingly are used not only to evade taxes but also to make illicit payments and fund criminal operations. That is further elevating concern over offshore accounts, both for the Bush administration and other officials. The administration has recently announced tax information-sharing agreements recently with several of the major tax havens, including the Bahamas and the Cayman Islands.  
. 
For now, if they're getting deposits into an offshore account, they are getting away with it, said John W. Moscow, deputy chief of the investigations division for New York City's Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, a longtime critic of tax havens and their bank-secrecy laws.   
. 
EDITORS COMMENTS:  Before I go into my own explanation, I think it important to highlight the following points taken directly from the article.  
. 
Point Number One:  It is claimed that possibly US$70 Billion Dollars owned by US citizens is offshore or outside of the US, and that tens of thousands, possibly 100,000 US citizens have set up offshore accounts.  HOWEVER, it is also clearly stated that NO one really knows the amount of money or the number of US citizens doing this – including the US government them-selves.  So, for starters, if the IRS does not really even know how much money is offshore or how many US citizens have done this, where are the numbers coming from?  Sounds like it is all a guess on their part, plus it admits they really do not have a clue in general about who has what (and where) outside of the US (unless of course you count the Bahamas, which has agreed to send them a computer tape of information directly).  
. 
Point Number Two:  The IRS has had a difficult time because banks outside of the US have refused to share account information strictly for the purposes or reason of taxation issues (criminal activity is another matter, but most nations hold the view – YOUR tax collection problem should not become OUR problem).  For this reason, the IRS has decided to try (and I emphasis try) to attack the matter via the credit card companies, who by the way have been fighting the idea of blindly turning over customer records also (which is not going to help anyway, as I shall explain below). 
. 
Point Number Three:  The article states and I quote; Law-enforcement officials say offshore credit and debit cards are so secure that they are effectively safer than cash.  So, you now have US law enforcement offering an endorsement for offshore credit cards and debit cards as being safer than cash.  As a result, unless I am crazy or read this wrong, US law enforcement is giving a positive plug for the idea of having an offshore credit card.  
. 
Point Number Four:  As we have stated before, they asked the famous bank robber Willie Sutton why he robbed banks.  His reply was, because that is where the money is.  On a similar note, we have reported that the US tax authorities have attacked all of the English speaking tax havens or jurisdictions because that is where they think (and I emphasis think) that is where most of the estimated US$70 Billion Dollars is located.  Case in point, maybe you should not be so obvious.  After all, the world is a big place.  Banking in countries not on the so-called tax haven black list is not only very possible, but perhaps a wise idea to stay below the radar screen.  Countries like Sweden, for example, known for exorbitantly high taxes for their own citizens, do not tax the bank accounts of foreigners.  Not only that, it is interesting to note that the banks do not even report such accounts to the Swedish Government because there is no related taxation issues involved with such accounts.  So, banking in a country NOT deemed to be a tax haven is possible and may offer the same non-reporting or non-taxation benefits as well.  The OECD and the IRS can create whatever little list they want (to be pinned on the bathroom wall), but the leader of any country that is intimidated because another country has put them on a list should have his or her head examined.  It reminds me of Squire Danaher from the famous John Wayne film, the Quiet Man, in which Squire Danaher kept a little black book with names of the local townspeople (whereby he would put little stars or whatever next to their name).  If you looked at Squire Danaher the wrong way or said something he did not like, he would put a mark next to your name (and presumably delete you from his Christmas card mailing list as a result or whatever).  Also, while it may be easy to catch (or harass with a stick) 20 cats penned up in a small room – try and catch or do it with 200 in a cornfield.  That is to say, the OECD has roughly 20 countries on their so-called black list.  What are they going to do about the other 200 or so (whatever the current count is) of other nations in the world that perhaps do not tax bank account interest for foreigners (or what ever the issue might be that they do not like)?  Make up a new list?  It all reminds me of the antics that go on in a school year involving 8-year olds at recess.  You remember?  If you do what I want, I will be your best friend.  If you do not do what I want, I will tell everyone you wet the bed, put your name on a list or whatever.  Some things never change, even after adulthood.  What is even more incredible though is, that some world leaders (Prime Minister Ingraham in the Bahamas for example) actually feel threatened by this.   
. 
Point Number Five:  The article also admits that the US government is doing this because A. It wants to increase tax revenue and B. To raise taxes would be political suicide.  Therefore the only option left is increased tax enforcement initiatives.  The end point is, we have been saying all along that the US government is going broke, as is the case with many other so-called modern or industrialized nations that can no longer afford to pay for their excessive spending and social programs.   The real question is then: Why don’t they stop spending money they do not have?  Why is Social Security going broke?  Why are people starving and homeless in one of the wealthiest nations on earth, while the very same government somehow can give money away to other foreign nations to feed their starving and homeless (US$ 5 Billion Dollars, for example, as mentioned earlier)?  Why should you have to pay for it through even more taxation, if you are not in agreement, and are barely getting ahead financially yourself? 
. 
All of this is basically about increased tax collection, which I think is already very obvious and also clearly stated.  However, the question I have is, Why are so many US citizens moving their money (and often them-selves) out of the US?  Are they frustrated?  Is this an indication of a deeper problem, rather than simply saying all such persons are merely crooked by nature and are anti-social tax cheats?   Perhaps there is a much deeper problem (or agenda) that government officials do not want to face, fix or admit to?  If there are only 5,000 Americans (out of 300 Million) that have offshore accounts, who cares?  Or is the number really larger, or the government so frightened that this is becoming a major trend, that they have to react?  One must remember that politicians are always reactive, and almost never proactive.  In other words, a traffic light is constructed at an intersection only after there have been 10 car accidents.  You rarely hear a politician say: Gee, we need to put a traffic light here because this road will probably become busy in the near future.  So, the point is, why are issues such as offshore bank accounts and related topics of deep interest all of a sudden?  Is it really because some fellow with a beard is sitting on a magic carpet inside a cave in the Middle East plotting to take down the Sears Tower in Chicago, or is it something else?   
. 
Roger Gallo’s Escape from America web site: http://www.escapeartist.com/ now gets close to 20 Million visitors to his site yearly.   We of course do get a few folks coming to visit us too, but Roger of course has quite a bit more generalized information then we do.  The point is, you decide for yourself what this means or may indicate.  Twenty Million is a huge number of people, and if visitors to a web site on the subject are any indicator, the number of people interested in this topic seems to be growing two fold (doubling) yearly.  Think about it. 
. 
The Japanese have a philosophy, which translates into:  Solve the Problem, not the Blame.   If you stop the reasons why people are leaving (either their money, themselves or both), all of this becomes a non-issue.  Does it not?  Or, is it the case there is an overly proportionate number of US citizens who are anti-social types, crooked by nature, and are trying to get away with something.  Believe what you will, and make up your own mind as to what you think the reality actually might be.  But whatever you do, at least make up your own mind about it rather than accepting someone else’s opinion (which could include my own, to be fair). 
. 
On the subject of the credit card companies, such as VISA and MasterCard, I will explain why once again, the OECD and the IRS is a dog chasing its own tail.  VISA and MasterCard are companies providing an electronic processing service, making money by handling the transactions that pass through its network.  Sort of like a water company collecting fees for everyone that hooks up to the water pipe, but in reality caring less what you use the water for, providing you pay your bill.   
. 
After all, where do you draw the line and what is the responsibility of business, any business (and what is the responsibility of government or law enforcement?).  Is the True Value hardware store chain responsible because one of its customers buys one of their screwdrivers and uses it as a murder weapon?    Why is VISA or MasterCard, or a bank for that matter, somehow liable or responsible for what customers do with the product or service (or money on deposit)?  Should they be?  Should they be forced to spend millions of dollars of their own money to change their record keeping or computer systems?  Should the True Value hardware store chain start keeping detailed computerized records of every customer that purchases a screwdriver (to be sent electronically to the FBI, along with the customer’s personal details, such as name & address)?  Is it the case that the government really IS broke, and that is why they are trying to pass on law enforcement functions and activities to private industry?  If one argues that in today’s world such things are necessary, does this mean to say that there were no people cheating on their income taxes fifty years ago (or is today’s generation exponentially more crooked than the last)?  If it is the case that a war requires such things, it this to say that Germany did not have any spies inside the US during World War II sixty years ago?    
. 
In any event, or to return to the topic at hand, this is how the system actually works or functions at the moment: VISA and MasterCard then DO NOT do not establish lines of credit to individual customers nor do they print any of the cute little plastic credit cards you have in your wallet.  What they do instead is, they charge the banks a fee to become a member of the processing network.  In reality, the customers of VISA and MasterCard are the BANKS, which are members of the network, not individual consumers.  The banks in turn interact with underlying retail clients (like yourself) establish a line of credit for you and print those nice little plastic cards.  Financial risk and payment responsibility is borne by the banks with regards to VISA and MasterCard.  In other words, the credit card companies could care less who you are, what your name is, or how much money you owe.  The bank (that is a member of the VISA or MasterCard network) is on the hook to honor all payments through the system (with regards to its own retail customers, who they must then chase for payment or whatever).  The credit card companies then have no financial or other kinds of risk, other than making sure everything goes along smoothly with its responsibility as the conductor or maintainer of the processing network (maintenance of the water pipe to go back to our previous example).  To be sure, they are concerned about fraud issues, stolen credit cards, etc., but only to the extent of the integrity of the network or in making sure its members do not have any problems (the banks which are members of the network).  Aside from that, the banks control all aspects of accounts owned or managed by its retail customers (you), including your application for a card, your credit worthiness as a customer, etc.  VISA and MasterCard could care less, they don’t extend credit, they only maintain the processing network, and therefore do not have any underlying information on file for retails card holders as a result.  
. 
In other words, the end point is, even if any government agency gets its hands on information regarding what transactions have moved through the system, this does not mean that such information would divulge anything about the underlying retail credit card holder, other than the name on the credit card, the credit card account number, and the bank who issued the card.  Only the bank that issued the card really knows who you are, as they should, because they are on the hook to VISA and MasterCard for anything you charge on your card (you of course are on the hook to the bank).  So, if it came down to it, banks could in theory issue cards in whatever names they wanted to and VISA or MasterCard could care less, providing the banks honor payment to VISA or MasterCard for what you, the retail customer, charges.  So, should a bank decide to give you a credit card in the name of Mickey Mouse, which was a card actually charged against or somehow internally connected to an account at the bank titled Donald Duck, not only would VISA or MasterCard be out of loop on such a case (they would not know), they really would not care providing they get paid by the bank (your bank), so they in turn can pass the money along to the merchant (the store where you used the card) and get their fee in the process.  So, in such an example, let the IRS chase Donald Duck all they want.  Chances are that Donald does not have a MasterCard, but it could be certainly possible that his third cousin twice removed, the Easter Bunny, might.  Of course, the IRS would then have to have knowledge of this and then of course prove that Mr. Bunny was in fact Mr. Duck, or that Fernando Arbola was in fact Spanky Jones from Arkansas, and so on.   Although, in a world where musicians and others are known by one name, or a name other than their real one, or in one case, an Egyptian symbol no less, it would seem that such an idea is not against the law (providing you pay your credit card bill, regardless of what you call yourself).  
. 
Aside from all of this, it sounds like the IRS wants to cross reference the names of credit card holders with respect to banks outside of the US that might have issued such cards, with it own database of taxpayers, thus creating an absolutely wonderful dog and pony show down at IRS headquarters.   Considering the large number of Hispanic Americans alone, I can’t wait for the IRS to freeze the US bank accounts of Pablo Guzman in New York (a Puerto Rican night watchman at Madison Square Garden) because another Pablo Guzman (a jazz musician in Lima, Peru) has a MasterCard from a bank in Panama.  Similarly, let us consider an audit notice sent to Mr. James Post in Bangor, Maine because another James Post (a British citizen retired in Antigua) has a VISA card from a bank in Antigua.  What fun and excitement lies ahead for all.           
. 
The final point is, nothing is to be gained by harassing VISA or MasterCard for information they really do not have anyway, and such credit companies now have to possibly spend millions of dollars to change their computer programming so they can send electronic files to The US government on a regular basis.   This is what is driving their anger over the whole thing (meaning the credit card companies).  In addition, companies like MasterCard also see a privacy and civil liberty issue at stake as well.  Also, if anyone thinks getting credit cards records will stop a terrorist from trying to kill you or stop people from figuring out a way around paying taxes, they are kidding themselves.  But, then again, who says politicians have any common sense anyway?  Maybe companies like MasterCard will get so ticked off, that they will close up shop, lay off 10,000 employees (putting even more Americans out of work), and set up operations somewhere in a place whereby the local government does not cost them money or harass them?  After all, it is really just another service business that can be operated anywhere.     
. 
. 
ANOTHER READER ASKS:  
. 
I understand that the DR and Panama utilized Civil Law.  How does that differ from Common Law and in your opinion, which is the better form of law to live under and to do business with? 
. 
EDITORS REPLY:  One must realize that the term Common Law really refers to English Common Law.  That is to say, all nations which use or speak English as their national language have their political and other roots based in the fact that they were at one time English colonies and have their legal system based upon the English model as a result.  What is the English model or basic differences to note?  Well, trial by a jury of one’s peers is one key element.  The other is the balance of power in a democratic system whereby the courts or judiciary seemingly have the power to interpret laws created by a group of elected government representatives.  The concept behind this, as I said, is meant to prevent politicians from passing laws, which are unconstitutional or allowing one branch of government from getting out of control.  This is a system of checks and balances, if you will.  However, it is the case whereby one man, a court judge, gets to throw out or reinterpret something hashed out by a group of people (elected officials) before him (or her).  It is meant to be a good idea, and it is, but you can see the possible abuses. 
. 
The Civil Law judicial system on the other hand comes from something other than English democratic traditions.  Using pre-democratic France as an example, the courts and judges were designed to uphold the law as it was handed down from above (the King for example), and not interpret its meaning or constitutionality.  Also, it usually was the case of one judge or a group of judges hearing cases to find out if the law in fact was broken (as written)?  So, you have a legal system basing its purpose on hearing cases (often not by the peers of a defendant) and upholding the law (as opposed to perhaps interpreting it).   So, you then in a general sense, have a legal system, which does not look to change laws or the meaning of laws without having those changes made by the legislative branch of government (which is what should happen, in my opinion). 
.  
My previous comments that you are referring to, which you read elsewhere, really centers with the point that Americans are lawsuit happy.  And how this plays out today using two different jurisdictions as a case study (one with a common law system and the other civil law).  Of course, it gets more complicated than that, because the other piece of the equation involves the local society as well (their own attitudes, etc.).  Perhaps this last factor is even more important than discussing what kind of legal system the country has, although you tend to find I think, today, that judges in civil law systems have more common sense.  For example, a patron (lets call him Spanky) in Joe’s Restaurant Diner located in Lansing, Michigan spills a cup of coffee on himself.  He then sues Joe (of Joe’s Diner) because the claim is that he burnt himself because the coffee was too hot, and gets a jury (supposedly made up of Spanky’s peers, which might be part of the problem right there) to award him US$2 Million Dollars in damages.  Let us take the same example of Joselito, a patron of Niko’s café in Panama (same situation).  However, Joselito attempts to sue Niko (of Niko’s café) only to find that the Panamanian judge orders the bailiff to handcuff him, and take him down to the local hospital for the insane.  Why?  Because no Panamanian in their right mind what attempt to sue someone over hot coffee that they spilled on themselves, therefore Joselito must be beyond being simply an idiot, he must in fact be insane to waste the courts time with such nonsense.  Case closed.       
. 
. 
Another Reader Writes: 
. 
John,  
. 
I am an ex US Army Green Beret. 10th Special Forces Group to be exact.  I read with interest the number of people who talk about legally avoiding the tax system. They may well have a point but Uncle Sam does not care about who is right and who is wrong! He does not even really care about the money. It is control that he wants. I urge them to proceed with caution!  
. 
Secondly, one of your readers requested information on Privacy Consultants. PLEASE ADVISE, THIS COMPANY IS A FRAUD!!!! I REPEAT A FRAUD.  Best Regards 
. 
EDITORS REPLY:  Thank you for your comments, and information.  By the way, as an aside comment, a good number of my clients are ex-military.  It would seem that such people see some things the general public does not, and are even more concerned about Escaping from America.  It is an interesting observation or issue to note, considering that such a group of people would seemingly be expected to have perhaps a different point of view. 
. 
..  
This information has been compiled and presented by John Schroder of Ascot Advisory Services, for the benefit of clients and readers. Ascot Advisory Services provides assistance with such matters as offshore company formation, Panama Foundations, offshore banking, and special services in the Dominican Republic regarding residency, free zone applications, etc. For more information: