PUBLIC CORPORATIONS FRAUD

Free Shipping on all orders for Our Services, Products and Law Memberships, other than PayPal orders.

Check out our "Law Memberships"

American National Common Law Group

Signed in as:

filler@godaddy.com

Account

FRAUD, CORRUPTION AND BRIBERY IN THE US GOVERNMENT

When is enough, enough?

The world have let corruption run rampant among the governments around the world.

According to the IMF:

"No Country" is immune to corruption. First we must determine the difference in what is a country and what is a Company?

Somewhere along the road to build a government, most of the people who lives in the world lost track of this important question.

The abuse of public office for private gain erodes people’s trust in government and institutions, makes public policies less effective and fair, and siphons taxpayers’ money away from schools, roads, and hospitals.

While the wasted money is important, the cost is about much more. Corruption corrodes the government’s ability to help grow the economy in a way that benefits all citizens.

But the political will to build strong and transparent institutions can turn the tide against corruption. In our new Fiscal Monitor, we shine a light on fiscal institutions and policies, like tax administration or procurement practices, and show how they can fight corruption.

Political will can turn the tide against corruption.

Corruption helps evade taxes

We analyze more than 180 countries and find that more corrupt countries collect fewer taxes, as people pay bribes to avoid them, including through tax loopholes designed in exchange for kickbacks. Also, when taxpayers believe their governments are corrupt, they are more likely to evade paying taxes.

We should know that overall, the least corrupt governments collect 4 percent of GDP more in tax revenues than countries at the same level of economic development with the highest levels of corruption.

A few countries’ reforms generated even higher revenues. Georgia, for example, reduced corruption significantly and tax revenues more than doubled, rising by 13 percentage points of GDP between 2003 and 2008. Rwanda’s reforms to fight corruption since the mid-1990s bore fruit, and tax revenues increased by 6 percentage points of GDP.

Corruption also prevents people from benefiting fully from the wealth created by their country’s natural resources. Because the exploration of oil or mining generates huge profits, it creates strong incentives for corruption. Our research shows that resource-rich countries, on average, have weaker institutions and higher corruption.

Corruption wastes taxpayers’ money

The Fiscal Monitor shows that countries with lower levels of perceived corruption have significantly less waste in public investment projects. We estimate that the most corrupt emerging market economies waste twice as much money as the least corrupt ones.

Governments waste taxpayers’ money when they spend it on cost overruns due to kickbacks or bid rigging in public procurement. So, when a country is less corrupt, it invests money more efficiently and fairly.

Corruption also distorts government priorities. For example, among low-income countries, the share of the budget dedicated to education and health is one-third lower in more corrupt countries. It also impacts the effectiveness of social spending. In more corrupt countries school-age students have lower test scores.

Corruption is also a problem in state-owned enterprises, such as some countries’ oil companies, and public utilities like electric and water companies. Our analysis suggests that these enterprises are less efficient in countries with high levels of corruption.

Where there is political will, there is a way

Fighting corruption requires political will to create strong fiscal institutions that promote integrity and accountability throughout the public sector.

Based on the research, here are some lessons for countries to help them build effective institutions that curb vulnerabilities to corruption:

Invest in high levels of transparency and independent external scrutiny. This allows audit agencies and the public at large to provide effective oversight. For example, Colombia, Costa Rica, and Paraguay are using an online platform that allows citizens to monitor the physical and financial progress of investment projects. Norway has developed a high standard of transparency to manage its natural resources. Our analysis also shows that a free press enhances the benefits of fiscal transparency. In Brazil, the results of audits impacted the reelection prospects of officials suspected of misuse of public money, but the impact was greater in areas with local radio stations.

Reform institutions. The chances for success are greater when countries design reforms to tackle corruption from all angles. For example, reforms to tax administration will have a greater payoff if tax laws are simpler and they reduce officials’ scope for discretion. To help countries, the IMF has built comprehensive diagnostics on the quality of fiscal institutions, including public investment management, revenue administration, and fiscal transparency.

Build a professional civil service. Transparent, merit-based hiring and pay reduce the opportunities for corruption. The heads of agencies, ministries, and public enterprises must promote ethical behavior by setting a clear tone at the top.

Keep pace with new challenges as technology and opportunities for wrongdoing evolve. Focus on areas of higher risk—such as procurement, revenue administration, and management of natural resources—as well as effective internal controls. In Chile and Korea, for example, electronic procurement systems have been powerful tools to curtail corruption by promoting transparency and improving competition.

More cooperation to fight corruption. Countries can also join efforts to make it harder for corruption to cross borders. For example, more than 40 countries have already made it a crime for their companies to pay bribes to gain business abroad under the OECD anti-corruption convention. Countries can also aggressively pursue anti–money laundering activities and reduce transnational opportunities to hide corrupt money in opaque financial centers.

Curbing corruption is a challenge that requires persevering on many fronts, but one that pays huge dividends. It starts with political will, continuously strengthening institutions to promote integrity and accountability, and global cooperation.

PLEASE EXCUSE OUR CONSTRUCTIONS AND UPDATES TO THIS WEBSITE AS YOU BROWSE!

ALLEGED CORRUPTION IN AMERICAN GOVERNMENTS

Public Official Corruption, Kickbacks, Bribery, Extortion, Nationwide, False Arrest, False Imprison

Political Unrest

HOW THE POLICE DEPARTMENTS STARTED

COVID- IS IT A PANDEMIC OR A PLANDEMIC AND WHAT WAS IT REALLY ABOUT?

There sure was and is a lot of finger pointing surrounding the cause of COVID-19.

WHY DID THE BURROUGHS HAVE TO BE VACCINATED BUT THE PEOPLE WHO RESIDE IN THE SUBURBS DID NOT?

WHY WAS THE WATER IN FLINT POISONED?

WHY WERE MOST CITIES IN AMERICA THAT WERE ALREADY SETTLE AND BUILT BEFORE COLONIZATION BURNED DOWN?

WHY WERE THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF THE AMERICAS NATIONALIZED INTO BEING 14TH AMENDMENT CITIZENS IN THE united states of AMERICA?

WHY WERE MOST COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD RE-NAMED AND REPOSITIONED IN THE 17TH, 18TH, AND 19TH CENTURY?

WHY WAS THE CONSULAR COURTS OF MOROCCO REMOVED FROM THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES?

WHY DID POPE FRANCIS ISSUE THE MOTO PROPRIO TO ALL PUBLIC OFFICIALS IN 2013?

WHY DID POPE FRANCIS ATTORNEY GIVE CIVIL ORDERS LETTER TO THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION?

Allegedly, Pope Francis Attorney gave the Obama Administration a CIVIL ORDER LETTER basically releasing them of all powers and specifically informing the Administration who their authority derives from. The UNITED STATES in the Supreme Court cases against the Native Americans, have stated they had authority to colonize under the DOCTRINE OF DISCOVERY. That Doctrine gave the Christian Nations the authority to rape, plumage and kill and capacity

Was the Tuskegee Experiment Fair and Righteous?

Customers have questions, you have answers. Display the most frequently asked questions, so everybody benefits.

Were All The Three To Four Thousand Lynching's Fair And Righteous?

Customers have questions, you have answers. Display the most frequently asked questions, so everybody benefits.

INTERESTING AMERICAN GOVERNMENTS FACTS

Learn true history the United States. US CorporationPolitical Parties, Constitutional Rights

Why was the original reason for starting the Democratic Party?

According to Britannica: The Democratic Party is the oldest political party in the United States and among the oldest political parties in the world. It traces its roots to 1792, when followers of Thomas Jefferson adopted the name Republican to emphasize their anti-monarchical views. The Republican Party, also known as the Jeffersonian Republicans, advocated a decentralized government with limited powers. Another faction to emerge in the early years of the republic, the Federalist Party, led by Alexander Hamilton, favoured a strong central government. Jefferson’s faction developed from the group of Anti-Federalists who had agitated in favour of the addition of a Bill of Rights to the Constitution of the United States. The Federalists called Jefferson’s faction the Democratic-Republican Party in an attempt to identify it with the disorder spawned by the “radical democrats” of the French Revolution of 1789. After the Federalist John Adams was elected president in 1796, the Republican Party served as the country’s first opposition party, and in 1798 the Republicans adopted the derisive Democratic-Republican label as their official name.

In 1800 Adams was defeated by Jefferson, whose victory ushered in a period of prolonged Democratic-Republican dominance. Jefferson won reelection easily in 1804, and Democratic-Republicans James Madison (1808 and 1812) and James Monroe (1816 and 1820) were also subsequently elected. By 1820 the Federalist Party had faded from national politics, leaving the Democratic-Republicans as the country’s sole major party and allowing Monroe to run unopposed in that year’s presidential election.

Despite Adams’s victory, differences between the Adams and the Jackson factions persisted. Adams’s supporters, representing Eastern interests, called themselves the National Republicans. Jackson, whose strength lay in the South and West, referred to his followers simply as Democrats (or as Jacksonian Democrats). Jackson defeated Adams in the 1828 presidential election. In 1832 in Baltimore, Maryland, at one of the country’s first national political conventions (the first convention had been held the previous year by the Anti-Masonic Movement), the Democrats nominated Jackson for president, drafted a party platform, and established a rule that required party presidential and vice presidential nominees to receive the votes of at least two-thirds of the national convention delegates. This rule, which was not repealed until 1936, effectively ceded veto power in the selection process to minority factions, and it often required conventions to hold dozens of ballots to determine a presidential nominee. (The party’s presidential candidate in 1924, John W. Davis, needed more than 100 ballots to secure the nomination.) Jackson easily won reelection in 1832, but his various opponents—who derisively referred to him as “King Andrew”—joined with former National Republicans to form the Whig Party, named for the English political faction that had opposed absolute monarchy in the 17th century (see Whig and Tory).

What was the original reason for starting the Republican Party?

According to Britannica:

The term Republican was adopted in 1792 by supporters of Thomas Jefferson, who favoured a decentralized government with limited powers. Although Jefferson’s political philosophy is consistent with the outlook of the modern Republican Party, his faction, which soon became known as the Democratic-Republican Party, ironically evolved by the 1830s into the Democratic Party, the modern Republican Party’s chief rival.

The Republican Party traces its roots to the 1850s, when antislavery leaders (including former members of the Democratic, Whig, and Free-Soil parties) joined forces to oppose the extension of slavery into the Kansas and Nebraska territories by the proposed Kansas-Nebraska Act. At meetings in Ripon, Wisconsin (May 1854), and Jackson, Michigan (July 1854), they recommended forming a new party, which was duly established at the political convention in Jackson.

At their first presidential nominating convention in 1856, the Republicans nominated John C. Frémont on a platform that called on Congress to abolish slavery in the territories, reflecting a widely held view in the North. Although ultimately unsuccessful in his presidential bid, Frémont carried 11 Northern states and received nearly two-fifths of the electoral vote. During the first four years of its existence, the party rapidly displaced the Whigs as the main opposition to the dominant Democratic Party. In 1860 the Democrats split over the slavery issue, as the Northern and Southern wings of the party nominated different candidates (Stephen A. Douglas and John C. Breckinridge, respectively); the election that year also included John Bell, the nominee of the Constitutional Union Party. Thus, the Republican candidate, Abraham Lincoln, was able to capture the presidency, winning 18 Northern states and receiving 60 percent of the electoral vote but only 40 percent of the popular vote. By the time of Lincoln’s inauguration as president, however, seven Southern states had seceded from the Union, and the country soon descended into the American Civil War (1861–65).

In 1863 Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, which declared slaves in rebelling states to be “forever free” and welcomed them to join the Union’s armed forces. The abolition of slavery would, in 1865, be formally entrenched in the Constitution of the United States with the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment. Because the historical role played by Lincoln and the Republican Party in the abolition of slavery came to be regarded as their greatest legacy, the Republican Party is sometimes referred to as the party of Lincoln.

The prolonged agony of the Civil War weakened Lincoln’s prospects for reelection in 1864. To broaden his support, he chose as his vice presidential candidate Andrew Johnson, a pro-Union Democratic senator from Tennessee, and the Lincoln-Johnson ticket subsequently won a landslide victory over Democrat George B. McClellan and his running mate George Pendleton. Following Lincoln’s assassination at the end of the war, Johnson favoured Lincoln’s moderate program for the Reconstruction of the South over the more punitive plan backed by the Radical Republican members of Congress. Stymied for a time by Johnson’s vetoes, the Radical Republicans won overwhelming control of Congress in the 1866 elections and engineered Johnson’s impeachment in the House of Representatives. Although the Senate fell one vote short of convicting and removing Johnson, the Radical Republicans managed to implement their Reconstruction program, which made the party anathema across the former Confederacy. In the North the party’s close identification with the Union victory secured it the allegiance of most farmers, and its support of protective tariffs and of the interests of big business eventually gained it the backing of powerful industrial and financial circles.

The 1860 election is today regarded by most political observers as the first of three “critical” elections in the United States—contests that produced sharp and enduring changes in party loyalties across the country (although some analysts consider the election of 1824 to be the first critical election). After 1860 the Democratic and Republican parties became the major parties in a largely two-party system. In federal elections from the 1870s to the 1890s, the parties were in rough balance—except in the South, which became solidly Democratic. The two parties controlled Congress for almost equal periods, though the Democrats held the presidency only during the two terms of Grover Cleveland (1885–89 and 1893–97).

In the country’s second critical election, in 1896, the Republicans won the presidency and control of both houses of Congress, and the Republican Party became the majority party in most states outside the South. The Republican presidential nominee that year was William McKinley, a conservative who favoured high tariffs on foreign goods and “sound” money tied to the value of gold. The Democrats, already burdened by the economic depression that began under President Cleveland, nominated William Jennings Bryan, who advocated cheap money (money available at low interest rates) based on both gold and silver.

The assassination of President McKinley in 1901 elevated to the presidency Theodore Roosevelt, leader of the party’s progressive wing. Roosevelt opposed monopolistic and exploitative business practices, adopted a more conciliatory attitude toward labour, and urged the conservation of natural resources. He was reelected in 1904 but declined to run in 1908, deferring to his secretary of war and friend, William Howard Taft, who won handily. Subsequently disenchanted with Taft’s conservative policies, Roosevelt unsuccessfully challenged him for the Republican nomination in 1912. Roosevelt then bolted the Republican Party to form the Progressive Party (Bull Moose Party) and ran for president against Taft and the Democratic candidate, Woodrow Wilson. With the Republican vote divided, Wilson won the presidency, and he was reelected in 1916. During the spectacular prosperity of the 1920s, the Republicans’ conservative and probusiness policies proved more attractive to voters than Wilson’s brand of idealism and internationalism. The Republicans easily won the presidential elections of 1920, 1924, and 1928.

The stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression that followed had severe consequences for the Republicans, largely because of their unwillingness to combat the effects of the depression through direct government intervention in the economy. In the election of 1932, considered the country’s third critical election, Republican incumbent Pres. Herbert Hoover was overwhelmingly defeated by Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the Republicans were relegated to the status of a minority party. Roosevelt’s three reelections (he was the only president to serve more than two terms), the succession of Harry S. Truman to the presidency on Roosevelt’s death in 1945, and Truman’s narrow election over New York Gov. Thomas E. Dewey in 1948 kept the Republicans out of the White House for two decades. Although most Republicans in the 1930s vehemently opposed Roosevelt’s New Deal social programs, by the 1950s the party had largely accepted the federal government’s expanded role and regulatory powers.

What was the Fusion Party

According to Britannica:

Fusion Party is a name for multiple political parties in United States history and more recently a Federal political party established in Australia. The different parties that used the name don't share any particular political positions; instead, confederations of people from disparate political backgrounds united around a common cause individual to their situation—often opposition to a common enemy—and used the name Fusion Party to reflect the aggregate nature of their new party.

The City Fusion Party in New York City was the vehicle that Republican Fiorello La Guardia used to defeat the Democrats of Tammany Hall and be elected mayor of New York in 1933, and reelected in 1937 and 1941.[1][2] It formed part of the New Deal coalition and worked closely with President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who provided the federal patronage.

The Fusion Party was the original name of the Republican Party in the state of Ohio. In 1854, anti-slavery parties were forming in many northern states in opposition to the Kansas Nebraska Act of 1854. While many of these state parties adopted the name "Republican", the Ohio convention adopted the name "Fusionist" or "Fusion Party", which they felt more accurately described the fusion of persons from a variety of political backgrounds, including members of the Free Soil Party, the Conscience Whig Party, and the Know-Nothing Party along with members of the Democratic Party who were opposed to slavery.

Similarly, in Indiana, the Know-Nothings were not strong enough to run candidates on their own, and so combined with Republicans and other interest groups to run candidates on the Fusion or People's Party tickets in opposition to the Anti-Nebraska movement.

In South Dakota, the Fusion Party was a short-lived political party that existed in the late 19th and early 20th century. The party was formed in 1896 from an alliance of Democrats, Free Silver Republicans, and Populists who were opposed to the platform of the state Republican Party.[5] A total of 56 Fusion Party representatives were elected to the state legislature during its brief existence.[6] In addition, Senator Richard F. Pettigrew, who served from 1889–1901, was the Fusion Party candidate for Senate in 1900, having left the Republican Party to join the Silver Republicans in 1896.[7] South Dakota Governor Andrew E. Lee was also an elected to his second term as a Fusionist.

In the very early 20th century, a coalition of Nevada Democrats and Silverites called themselves the Fusion Party upon the insistence of Francis G. Newlands, who wanted to emphasize the need for fusion between the two groups if he wanted to hope for victory in the 1902 election. Fusion clubs were established in a number of counties throughout Nevada, and, despite a few temporary setbacks, a successful fusion of the two parties in the state did occur, and Newlands was elected Senator.

Established in January 2022, the Fusion Party [10] is an amalgamation of five political parties. The Climate Change Justice Party, Pirate Party, Science Party, Secular Party of Australia, and Vote Planet. The merger was initiated by a change in the Australian Electrical Commission legislative change[11] to require a minimum of 1500 active members. Concerned that each of the five parties would not be able to meet the minimum criteria, they joined together under the Fusion Party.

What was the Whig Party

According to Britannica: Whig Party, in U.S. history, major political party active in the period 1834–54 that espoused a program of national development but foundered on the rising tide of sectional antagonism. The Whig Party was formally organized in 1834, bringing together a loose coalition of groups united in their opposition to what party members viewed as the executive tyranny of “King Andrew” Jackson. They borrowed the name Whig from the British party opposed to royal prerogatives.

Jackson had shattered the National Republican Party with his victories in 1828 and 1832. His war against the Second Bank of the United States and his opposition to nullification in South Carolina, however, allowed Henry Clay to bring fiscal conservatives and southern states’ rights proponents together in a coalition with those who still believed in the National Republican program of a protective tariff and federally financed internal improvements. Members of the Anti-Masonic Movement merged with the Whigs after the demise of the Anti-Masonic Party in the mid-1830s.

Allied almost exclusively by their common dislike of Jackson and his policies—and later by their hunger for office—the Whigs never developed a definitive party program. In 1836 they ran three presidential candidates (Daniel Webster, Hugh L. White, and William Henry Harrison) to appeal to the East, South, and West, respectively, attempting to throw the election into the House of Representatives. In 1840 they abandoned the sectional approach to nominate the military hero William Henry Harrison. The subsequent contest was devoid of issues, Harrison winning on the basis of incessant electioneering by his supporters in the “log cabin” campaign.

After capturing both the White House and Congress in 1840, the Whigs were poised to become the nation’s dominant party and to enact Henry Clay’s nationalistic program. Harrison died within a month of his inauguration, however, and his successor, John Tyler, proceeded to veto major Whig legislation—including re-creation of the Bank of the United States.

Clay, the nominee in 1844, lost the election when he misgauged the popularity of expansionism and opposed the annexation of Texas. By the late 1840s the Whig coalition was beginning to unravel as factions of “Conscience” (antislavery) Whigs and “Cotton” (proslavery) Whigs emerged. In 1848 the party returned to its winning formula by running a military hero—this time Zachary Taylor—for president. But the Compromise of 1850, fashioned by Henry Clay and signed into law by Millard Fillmore (who succeeded to the presidency on Taylor’s death in 1850), fatally estranged the Conscience Whigs from their party.

Again turning to a former general, the Whigs in 1852 nominated Gen. Winfield Scott. The North and South had become so polarized over the slavery issue that the Whigs were no longer able to make a broad national appeal on the basis of “unalterable attachment to the Constitution and the Union.” Scott collected just 42 electoral votes as many southern Whigs flocked to the banner of the states’ rights oriented Democratic Party.

By 1854 most northern Whigs had joined the newly formed Republican Party. To the extent that the party continued to exist, it commanded support only in the border states and from conservatives who refused to take sides in the sectional conflict. Many of the last remaining Whigs found a niche in the Know-Nothing Party during the second half of the 1850s and then backed the Constitutional Union Party as the country split apart in 1860.

Why does most of the cities have a history where they had many Old World buildings pre-colonization?

Why was the original reason for starting the Democratic Party?

What was the original reason for starting the Republican Party?

Why was most of the Indigenous Peoples Treaty's Broken?

What is the longest treaty ever kept and running by the united states of America?

Has this treaty been honored or bureaucratically suppressed by the occupied government?

FURTHER ALLEGED CORRUPTION IN AMERICAN GOVERNMENTS FACTS