(Not being a B.A.R. attorney, this posting should not be considered practicing law, some items have been tried successfully by others.)
DEA launders Mexican profits of drug cartels The agents, primarily with the Drug Enforcement Administration, have handled shipments of hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal cash across borders, those officials said, to identify how criminal organizations move their money, where they keep their assets and, most important, who their leaders are. (The question arises as to how the drugs are sold in the United States to launder the funds. For one example, here is Nevada Revised Statute 372A going deeper into that statute you find:
NRS 372A.070 Registration with Department as dealer; payment and calculation of tax; identifying information in tax return; civil penalty; action for enforcement.
1. A person shall not sell, offer to sell or possess with the intent to sell a controlled substance unless he or she first
(a) Registers with the Department as a dealer in controlled substances and pays an annual fee of $250; and
(b) Pays a tax on:
(1) Each gram of marijuana, or portion thereof, of $100;
(2) Each gram of any other controlled substance, or portion thereof, of $1,000; and
(3) Each 50 dosage units of a controlled substance that is not sold by weight, or portion thereof, of $2,000.
2. For the purpose of calculating the tax imposed by subparagraphs (1) and (2) of paragraph (b) of subsection 1, the controlled substance must be measured by the weight of the substance in the dealer’s possession, including the weight of any material, compound, mixture or preparation that is added to the controlled substance.
3. The Department shall not require a registered dealer to give his or her name, address, social security number or other identifying information on any return submitted with the tax.
4. Any person who violates subsection 1 is subject to a civil penalty of 100 percent of the tax in addition to the tax imposed by subsection 1. Any civil penalty imposed pursuant to this subsection must be collected as part of the tax.
5. The district attorney of any county in which a dealer resides may institute and conduct the prosecution of any action for violation of subsection 1.
6. Property forfeited or subject to forfeiture pursuant to NRS 453.301 must not be used to satisfy a fee, tax or penalty imposed by this section.(Added to NRS by 1987, 1738; A 1989, 814)
(Notice it uses the term ‘person’; a person is a corporation. Corporations can use the tax on the controlled substances as a tax write off. Further, when corporations get caught it is a fine and not imprisonment.)
NRS 372A.080 Information and records concerning dealer confidential; limitations on use and admissibility of information; penalty for disclosure.
1. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 239.0115, all information which is submitted to the Department by or on behalf of a dealer in controlled substances pursuant to this chapter and all records of the Department which contain the name, address or any other identifying information concerning a dealer are confidential.
(Seeing as how the buyer isn’t required to declare themselves, there is not way to determine exactly which drug in which amount the tax was paid for. The War on Drugs is a complete scam, and if you check your state’s Revised Statutes you will find the same set up. I can hear the selling corporations now, “that individual that got caught with the drugs we sold, we paid the tax on. . . . . honest”. It is all about money, not keeping drugs off the street. )
(You might remember I reported on this story in weeks past. Let’s look a bit deeper shall we?) New Mexico Sheriffs Standing Tall (This isn’t about the sheriffs or the militia that helped, but about Congressman Pearce and what he actually knows. The article says: )Not only were the trees cut down with no opposition from the feds, the first tree was cut down by Congressman Steve Pearce (R-2nd District). Would that there were many more like Rep. Pearce. (Do you suppose Congressman Pearce was aware the authorizing of the law was in brackets [ ] meaning that the statute could be easily challenged on jurisdiction because the authorization was omitted? To understand what I am saying please refer to Authority of Title 27/Title 18 on Firearms or to Rules of Style
Brackets Brackets in pairs, are used- 8.19. In transcripts, congressional hearings, testimony in courtwork, etc., to enclose interpolations that are not specifically a part of the original quotation, corrections, explanations, omissions, editorial comments, or a caution that an error is reproduced literally, 8.20 In Bills, Contracts, etc. to indicate matter that is to be omitted
The following are prohibited:
(a)Cutting or otherwise damaging any timber, tree, or other forest product, except as authorized by a special-use authorization, timber sale contract, or Federal law or regulation.
(b) Cutting any standing tree, under permit or timber sale contract, before a Forest Officer has marked it or has otherwise designated it for cutting.
(c) Removing any timber or other forest product cut under permit or timber sale contract, except to a place designated for scaling, or removing it from that place before it is scaled, measured, counted, or otherwise accounted for by a forest officer.
(d) Stamping, marking with paint, or otherwise identifying any tree or other forest product in a manner similar to that employed by forest officers to mark or designate a tree or any other forest product for cutting or removal.
(e) Loading, removing or hauling timber or other forest product acquired under any permit or timber sale contract unless such product is identified as required in such permit or contract.
(f) Selling or exchanging any timber or other forest product obtained under free use pursuant to §§ 223.5 through 223.11.(g) Violating any timber export or substitution restriction in §§ 223.160 through 223.164.
(h) Removing any timber, tree or other forest product, except as authorized by a special-use authorization, timber sale contract, or Federal law or regulation.
(i) Violating the Forest Resources Conservation and Shortage Relief Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 620, et seq.), or its implementing regulations at 36 CFR 223.185-223.203.
[42 FR 2957, Jan. 14, 1977; 42 FR 24739, May 16, 1977, as amended at 49 FR 25450, June 21, 1984; 51 FR 1250, Jan. 10, 1986; 60 FR 46934, Sept. 8, 1995] (The implementing regulations have been omitted. I believe for cause; unlike omitted authorization in firearms laws, due to the Second Amendment, it is because our Creator is responsible for the forests. To not use, and not abuse, what the Creator has put on this planet for our use is blasphemy, and goes to a natural right. Yes, a natural right for tools, for homes, and for heating, and cooking since man learned to make to fire. Further, the federal government operating inside the states is a violation of the 10th Amendment.
So, did Congressman Pearce know the implementation regulations had been omitted, and even if he did, would it not be a violation of the ‘equal protection’ clause of the 14th Amendment that he was not arrested?
A millionaire Congressman who pretended to be a hero is exposed. )