A Washington State judge ruled today that Josh Powell's children are not safe in the home with their father and will not be returned to him.
Josh Powell is the husband of Susan Cox Powell, the woman (wife & mother) who has been missing since December 2009. Josh Powell has said he took his boys, then 2 and 4, on a late night camping trip in freezing temperatures the day his wife disappeared from their West Valley City Utah home in December of 2009. West Valley police continue to call him a person of interest in the case because they say "he has not been cooperative with them".
This story has no shortage of bizarre circumstances and bone-chilling accusations. Two things this story does lack however, are FACTS and CRIMINAL CHARGES. Seemingly no one knows what happened to Susan Cox Powell and where she might be. Everyone has their opinion of what happened, and almost all of those opinions claim certainty of Josh's guilt in Susan's murder.
I don't know what happened. I don't claim to have some litmus test by which I can say that Josh MUST be guilty because of his bizarre behavior, his overall demeanor, or his father's alleged perversions. I think that almost all the circumstantial evidence revealed to the public points to Josh as being the responsible party. Since that is the only evidence I have in the case, my theory would be that Josh is somehow responsible for his wife's disappearance and concealment of her person or body. BUT I DON'T KNOW, and I don't have anywhere near enough information to make an educated decision; only an uneducated, emotional and irrational decision.
I do know some things that I think are very relevant AND factual.
1. Someone took two young boys away from their father under threat of force
2. The boys have been placed with Josh's in-laws
3. Josh and his in-laws are not on good terms, it is a very contentious relationship
4. Josh Powell has not been charged or convicted of any wrong-doing and no evidence has been shown that he himself is harmful to the boys
5. Josh Powell's father has been removed from the home along with any alleged lewd materials
6. According to the judge, Josh will not get his children back
The judge ruled for Josh's father-in-law during the custody hearing, agreeing with the complaint that:
"the children were being harmed because they had never received counseling about their mother's disappearance, they might have been exposed to the inappropriate videos and they had been cut off from their maternal grandparents without explanation."
May we all be intellectually honest enough to put ourselves in his shoes and at least ponder for a moment that he may be innocent (until proven guilty). Were this you:
1. Your wife of many years is missing
2. Because you left around midnight to go camping after a verbal extrication, you are considered the ONLY suspect in a pending murder investigation
3. You don't know where or how your wife is
4. The media have created a public picture, painting you as the bad guy who killed your children's mother.
5. You have been receiving death threats and other non-stop phone calls, letters, shouts, and other threats for nearly two years
6. You left the state to escape the persecution
7. Your presence at your fathers house has now brought attention and a search of his residence may have revealed his private weakness, perversion and criminality (allegations) so now he will most likely spend the rest of his life in prison
8. Armed police, ignoring your protests for due process, confiscated your children giving them to your accusatory in-laws who bitterly believe you are a murder
9. A judge, with proper jurisdiction, rules that your children will not be returned to you because you hadn't sought outside "professional" counseling, and because the media will not leave you alone.
What do you do? If Josh is indeed innocent of the claims being unofficially made against him, he may not remain innocent for long. I do not know what father could sit idly by and let these injustices be perpetrated against you and your children. Were I Josh Powell (and actually innocent as he claims), I would not stand for it. I would appeal to every elected representative, court, and individual that would hear it. I would stage a hunger protest, I would commit suicide by starvation if no one would hear me and bring equal justice to the equation, forcing into the courts my constitutional right to be presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty. I hope that's all I would do, I might become violent in defense of my rights, I would understand if Josh did too.
Josh, you have not been proven guilty. Unless that happens, I stand by you. I hear you. Guilty or not, I am shamed by the actions perpetrated against you in my name. I pray that your family will be restored to you and the presumption of innocence will be granted to you unless proven otherwise. May God be with you and hold you in the palm of his hand.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Educate or Incarcerate?
The United States accounts for 5% of the world's population, but locks up nearly 25% of the world's prisoners.
The truth will set you free, avoiding it will imprison you. Americans have neglected their duty of self-government for so long, our kids are more likely to be put in jail than to be put in office. This author believes the answer to this growing crisis is for the american people to educate themselves on what they're giving government the authority to arrest them for. Leave people alone and they will strive for better lives.
The link that follows will take you to an article that I found enlightening that sheds some light on the financial and societal problems facing Americans today.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/04/07/jealous.prison.reform/index.html?hpt=Sbin
The truth will set you free, avoiding it will imprison you. Americans have neglected their duty of self-government for so long, our kids are more likely to be put in jail than to be put in office. This author believes the answer to this growing crisis is for the american people to educate themselves on what they're giving government the authority to arrest them for. Leave people alone and they will strive for better lives.
The link that follows will take you to an article that I found enlightening that sheds some light on the financial and societal problems facing Americans today.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/04/07/jealous.prison.reform/index.html?hpt=Sbin
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Atlas Shrugged Movie FINISHED
Part 1 of the movie Atlas Shrugged based on the controversial and mind-blowing novel by Ayn Rand is finished! The movie is set to be available in theater on tax day, April 15, 2011. There have been movie premiers already and the reviews are sensational, including a 'must see' endorsement from Sean Hannity. Visit the Official Atlas Shrugged Movie Web Site!
I cannot put a higher endorsement on anything as I do regarding Atlas Shrugged the novel by Ayn Rand. If this movie series even scratches the surface of the book, it could be the best series ever.
I cannot put a higher endorsement on anything as I do regarding Atlas Shrugged the novel by Ayn Rand. If this movie series even scratches the surface of the book, it could be the best series ever.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
What an amazing fight goes on all around us! Can the government do things for individuals? Yes. Should it do everything it does? No. If you want to cut 100B from the budget, GET RID OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION! Brigham Young (famous religious guy) said it best:
I am opposed to free education as much as I am opposed to taking property from one man and giving it to another who knows not how to take care of it… I do not believe in allowing my charities to go through the hands of robbers who pocket nine-tenths themselves and give one tenth to the poor… Would I encourage free schools by taxation? No! (Brigham Young, via Quoty)
We had to pay our own schoolteachers, raise our own bread and earn our own clothing, or go without; there was no other choice. We did it then, and we are able to do the same to-day. I want to enlist the sympathies of the ladies among the Latter-day Saints, to see what we can do for ourselves with regard to schooling our children. Do not say you cannot school them, for you can… I understand that the other night there was a school meeting in one of the wards of this city, and a part there–a poor miserable apostate–said, “We want a free school, and we want to have the name of establishing the first free school in Utah.” To call a person a poor miserable apostate may seem like a harsh word; but what shall we call a man who talks about free schools and who would have all the people taxed to support them, and yet would take his rifle and threaten to shoot the man who had the collection of the ordinary light taxes levied in this Territory–taxes which are lighter than any levied in any other portion of the country? (Brigham Young, via Quoty)
I am opposed to free education as much as I am opposed to taking property from one man and giving it to another who knows not how to take care of it… I do not believe in allowing my charities to go through the hands of robbers who pocket nine-tenths themselves and give one tenth to the poor… Would I encourage free schools by taxation? No! (Brigham Young, via Quoty)
We had to pay our own schoolteachers, raise our own bread and earn our own clothing, or go without; there was no other choice. We did it then, and we are able to do the same to-day. I want to enlist the sympathies of the ladies among the Latter-day Saints, to see what we can do for ourselves with regard to schooling our children. Do not say you cannot school them, for you can… I understand that the other night there was a school meeting in one of the wards of this city, and a part there–a poor miserable apostate–said, “We want a free school, and we want to have the name of establishing the first free school in Utah.” To call a person a poor miserable apostate may seem like a harsh word; but what shall we call a man who talks about free schools and who would have all the people taxed to support them, and yet would take his rifle and threaten to shoot the man who had the collection of the ordinary light taxes levied in this Territory–taxes which are lighter than any levied in any other portion of the country? (Brigham Young, via Quoty)
Monday, May 3, 2010
See the below article, then read my comments at the end. Article comes from:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/04/26/costly-irs-mandate-slipped-into-health-bill/
----
Costly IRS Mandate Slipped into Health Bill
Posted by Chris Edwards
Most people know about the individual mandate in the new health care bill, but the bill contained another mandate that could be far more costly.
A few wording changes to the tax code’s section 6041 regarding 1099 reporting were slipped into the 2000-page health legislation. The changes will force millions of businesses to issue hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, of additional IRS Form 1099s every year. It appears to be a costly, anti-business nightmare.
Under current law, businesses are required to issue 1099s in a limited set of situations, such as when paying outside consultants. The health care bill includes a vast expansion in this information reporting requirement in an attempt to raise revenue for an increasingly rapacious Congress.
In a recent summary, tax information firm RIA notes the types of transactions covered by the new 1099 rules:
The 2010 Health Care Act adds “amounts in consideration for property” (Code Sec. 6041(a) as amended by 2010 Health Care Act §9006(b)(1)) and “gross proceeds” (Code Sec. 6041(a) as amended by 2010 Health Care Act §9006(b)(2)) to the pre-2010 Health Care Act categories of payments for which an information return to IRS will be required if the $600 aggregate payment threshold is met in a tax year for any one payee. Thus, Congress says that for payments made after 2011, the term “payments” includes gross proceeds paid in consideration for property or services.
Basically, businesses will have to issue 1099s whenever they do more than $600 of business with another entity in a year. For the $14 trillion U.S. economy, that’s a hell of a lot of 1099s. When a business buys a $1,000 used car, it will have to gather information on the seller and mail 1099s to the seller and the IRS. When a small shop owner pays her rent, she will have to send a 1099 to the landlord and IRS. Recipients of the vast flood of these forms will have to match them with existing accounting records. There will be huge numbers of errors and mismatches, which will probably generate many costly battles with the IRS.
Tax CPA Chris Hesse of LeMaster Daniels tells me:
Under the health legislation, the IRS could be receiving billions of more documents. Under current law, businesses send Forms 1099 for payments of rent, interest, dividends, and non-employee services when such payments are to entities other than corporations. Under the new law, businesses will be required to send a 1099 to other businesses for virtually all purchases. And for the first time, 1099s are to be sent to corporations. This is a huge new imposition on American business, costing the private economy much more than any additional tax that the IRS might collect as a result.
There appears to have been little discussion before this damaging mandate was slipped into the health bill and rammed through Congress, but a few business groups did raise concerns. Here’s what the Air Conditioner Contractors of America said:
The House bill would extend the Form 1099 filing requirement to ALL vendors (including corporate) to which they pay more than $600 annually for services or property. Consider all the payments a small business makes in the course of business, paying for things such as computers, software, office supplies, and fuel to services, including janitorial services, coffee services, and package delivery services.
In order to file all these 1099s, you’ll need to collect the necessary information from all your service providers. In order to comply with the law, you would have to get a Taxpayer Information Number or TIN from the business. If the vendor does not supply you with a TIN, you are obligated to withhold on your payments.
Private transactions are the core of a market economy, and the source of America’s growth and prosperity. Now the federal government is imposing a vast new web of red tape on perhaps billions of these growth-generating private exchanges.
For what purpose? So the spendthrift Congress can shake a few extra bucks out of private industry? The business sector is the generator of America’s high living standards, but most federal legislators just see it as a kitty to be raided or a cow to be milked dry.
I’m stunned that there wasn’t a broader debate before such a costly mandate was enacted. If it goes into effect, it will waste vast quantities of human effort in filling out forms, reworking computer systems, collecting and organizing data, and fighting the IRS. The struggling American economy can’t afford anymore suffocating tax regulations. This mandate is a giant deadweight loss. It should be repealed.
----
Do you think this could open up the incentive for an effective barter system? An online credit transfer system? Like eGold or eBullion where the transfer isn’t dollars but a weight of a specific commodity? We’re talking literally hundreds of billions of dollars in productive wealth lost nationally every year. This money doesn’t all go to the government as taxes as many think, this money will be wasted in compliance.
This WILL provide new jobs, at the expense of old jobs. Corporations will need SUBSTANTIALLY more accountants or paper-pushers as well as more attorneys to defend them from the IRS. This money will have to come from other areas such as increasing final cost or lowering current expenses such as lower priority services and lowering payroll elsewhere.
I think these necessary HUGE changes will cause many already struggling companies willing to make drastic changes and re-think their current business model and modus operandi. Were these companies offered a solution that is well implemented and quickly adaptable, a new market would emerge and regulations would be revealed as exactly what they are: anti-freedom, anti-life.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/04/26/costly-irs-mandate-slipped-into-health-bill/
----
Costly IRS Mandate Slipped into Health Bill
Posted by Chris Edwards
Most people know about the individual mandate in the new health care bill, but the bill contained another mandate that could be far more costly.
A few wording changes to the tax code’s section 6041 regarding 1099 reporting were slipped into the 2000-page health legislation. The changes will force millions of businesses to issue hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, of additional IRS Form 1099s every year. It appears to be a costly, anti-business nightmare.
Under current law, businesses are required to issue 1099s in a limited set of situations, such as when paying outside consultants. The health care bill includes a vast expansion in this information reporting requirement in an attempt to raise revenue for an increasingly rapacious Congress.
In a recent summary, tax information firm RIA notes the types of transactions covered by the new 1099 rules:
The 2010 Health Care Act adds “amounts in consideration for property” (Code Sec. 6041(a) as amended by 2010 Health Care Act §9006(b)(1)) and “gross proceeds” (Code Sec. 6041(a) as amended by 2010 Health Care Act §9006(b)(2)) to the pre-2010 Health Care Act categories of payments for which an information return to IRS will be required if the $600 aggregate payment threshold is met in a tax year for any one payee. Thus, Congress says that for payments made after 2011, the term “payments” includes gross proceeds paid in consideration for property or services.
Basically, businesses will have to issue 1099s whenever they do more than $600 of business with another entity in a year. For the $14 trillion U.S. economy, that’s a hell of a lot of 1099s. When a business buys a $1,000 used car, it will have to gather information on the seller and mail 1099s to the seller and the IRS. When a small shop owner pays her rent, she will have to send a 1099 to the landlord and IRS. Recipients of the vast flood of these forms will have to match them with existing accounting records. There will be huge numbers of errors and mismatches, which will probably generate many costly battles with the IRS.
Tax CPA Chris Hesse of LeMaster Daniels tells me:
Under the health legislation, the IRS could be receiving billions of more documents. Under current law, businesses send Forms 1099 for payments of rent, interest, dividends, and non-employee services when such payments are to entities other than corporations. Under the new law, businesses will be required to send a 1099 to other businesses for virtually all purchases. And for the first time, 1099s are to be sent to corporations. This is a huge new imposition on American business, costing the private economy much more than any additional tax that the IRS might collect as a result.
There appears to have been little discussion before this damaging mandate was slipped into the health bill and rammed through Congress, but a few business groups did raise concerns. Here’s what the Air Conditioner Contractors of America said:
The House bill would extend the Form 1099 filing requirement to ALL vendors (including corporate) to which they pay more than $600 annually for services or property. Consider all the payments a small business makes in the course of business, paying for things such as computers, software, office supplies, and fuel to services, including janitorial services, coffee services, and package delivery services.
In order to file all these 1099s, you’ll need to collect the necessary information from all your service providers. In order to comply with the law, you would have to get a Taxpayer Information Number or TIN from the business. If the vendor does not supply you with a TIN, you are obligated to withhold on your payments.
Private transactions are the core of a market economy, and the source of America’s growth and prosperity. Now the federal government is imposing a vast new web of red tape on perhaps billions of these growth-generating private exchanges.
For what purpose? So the spendthrift Congress can shake a few extra bucks out of private industry? The business sector is the generator of America’s high living standards, but most federal legislators just see it as a kitty to be raided or a cow to be milked dry.
I’m stunned that there wasn’t a broader debate before such a costly mandate was enacted. If it goes into effect, it will waste vast quantities of human effort in filling out forms, reworking computer systems, collecting and organizing data, and fighting the IRS. The struggling American economy can’t afford anymore suffocating tax regulations. This mandate is a giant deadweight loss. It should be repealed.
----
Do you think this could open up the incentive for an effective barter system? An online credit transfer system? Like eGold or eBullion where the transfer isn’t dollars but a weight of a specific commodity? We’re talking literally hundreds of billions of dollars in productive wealth lost nationally every year. This money doesn’t all go to the government as taxes as many think, this money will be wasted in compliance.
This WILL provide new jobs, at the expense of old jobs. Corporations will need SUBSTANTIALLY more accountants or paper-pushers as well as more attorneys to defend them from the IRS. This money will have to come from other areas such as increasing final cost or lowering current expenses such as lower priority services and lowering payroll elsewhere.
I think these necessary HUGE changes will cause many already struggling companies willing to make drastic changes and re-think their current business model and modus operandi. Were these companies offered a solution that is well implemented and quickly adaptable, a new market would emerge and regulations would be revealed as exactly what they are: anti-freedom, anti-life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Google Search Box
Custom Search
