Horst D. Deckert

Meine Kunden kommen fast alle aus Deutschland, obwohl ich mich schon vor 48 Jahren auf eine lange Abenteuerreise begeben habe.

So hat alles angefangen:

Am 1.8.1966 begann ich meine Ausbildung, 1969 mein berufsbegleitendes Studium im Öffentlichen Recht und Steuerrecht.

Seit dem 1.8.1971 bin ich selbständig und als Spezialist für vermeintlich unlösbare Probleme von Unternehmern tätig.

Im Oktober 1977 bin ich nach Griechenland umgezogen und habe von dort aus mit einer Reiseschreibmaschine und einem Bakelit-Telefon gearbeitet. Alle paar Monate fuhr oder flog ich zu meinen Mandanten nach Deutschland. Griechenland interessierte sich damals nicht für Steuern.

Bis 2008 habe ich mit Unterbrechungen die meiste Zeit in Griechenland verbracht. Von 1995 bis 2000 hatte ich meinen steuerlichen Wohnsitz in Belgien und seit 2001 in Paraguay.

Von 2000 bis 2011 hatte ich einen weiteren steuerfreien Wohnsitz auf Mallorca. Seit 2011 lebe ich das ganze Jahr über nur noch in Paraguay.

Mein eigenes Haus habe ich erst mit 62 Jahren gebaut, als ich es bar bezahlen konnte. Hätte ich es früher gebaut, wäre das nur mit einer Bankfinanzierung möglich gewesen. Dann wäre ich an einen Ort gebunden gewesen und hätte mich einschränken müssen. Das wollte ich nicht.

Mein Leben lang habe ich das Angenehme mit dem Nützlichen verbunden. Seit 2014 war ich nicht mehr in Europa. Viele meiner Kunden kommen nach Paraguay, um sich von mir unter vier Augen beraten zu lassen, etwa 200 Investoren und Unternehmer pro Jahr.

Mit den meisten Kunden funktioniert das aber auch wunderbar online oder per Telefon.

Jetzt kostenlosen Gesprächstermin buchen

First Amendment Showdown: Owen Shroyer Challenges Government Bid to Halt Appeal

1osn23.jpg

“Before this case, the prospect of such an event was not a judicial reality, but merely a bleak dystopian fantasy.”

The federal government overstepped its constitutional boundaries by dismissing Infowars host Owen Shroyer’s motion to appeal his verdict, violating his right to free speech, argues Shroyer’s attorney Norm Pattis.

Shroyer hosts Infowars’ War Room program on weekdays, where for three hours a day he passionately expresses his political opinion to a wide audience. Prosecutors evidently used speech made on the show against him.

In a court filing submitted Monday to the DC Court of Appeals, Pattis pushed back against the government’s dismissal of Shroyer’s appeal arguing prosecutors used his client’s political opinions – made weeks and months ahead of the alleged offense – against him, violating his constitutionally protected right to free speech.

Mr. Shroyer contends that the appeal should not be dismissed because it raises a serious and substantial question about the substantive unreasonableness of the District Court’s imposition of sentence: to wit, whether the Court sentenced Mr. Shroyer to a period of incarceration because of Mr. Shroyer’s protected speech, an egregious violation of Mr. Shroyer’s rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. He contends that given the importance of protected speech, especially protected speech about political events, such speech, when unrelated to proof of intent to commit a crime, is never “relevant offense conduct.” To rule otherwise is to grant to the Government the power to seek penal consequences on account of speech, a result that would be abhorrent to the nation’s founders and should be anathema to a reviewing court committed to constitutional principles.

Pattis pointed out that during sentencing, government prosecutors sought to justify a sentence of 120 days in jail for Shroyer by “urging the Court to consider the fact that Mr. Shroyer previously spread ‘disinformation’ about the 2020 election and had otherwise encouraged others to protest in an effort to ‘Stop the Steal,’ before, during and after January 6, 2021.”

Shroyer at the time pushed back against the original sentence calling it unlawful and saying he “had every right to hold opinions Government officials might regard as heterodoxic, even wrong.”

However, the government rejected Shroyer’s argument and contended that a plea deal, to which Shroyer had agreed, prevented him from filing an appeal “if the sentence did not exceed the maximum contemplated by the plea agreement.”

Shroyer argued he did not anticipate the court would impose a prison sentence for exercising free speech and contended the reasons behind the court’s decision were “so shocking” as to render the plea agreement void.

“Put simply, it was not foreseeable to Mr. Shroyer that a District Court judge in the United States of America would send a person to prison for uttering political opinions. Before this case, the prospect of such an event was not a judicial reality, but merely a bleak dystopian fantasy.”

“Political speech uttered in the weeks and months before a trespassory offense ought never to be considered ‘relevant offense conduct.’”

It remains to be seen how the legal battle between Shroyer and the government shapes up.

Read Pattis’ filing below:


The globalists are increasing their attacks on Infowars and the stakes have never been higher!

Please consider donating and visit InfowarsStore.com for merch, nutraceuticals and survival gear.


Follow the author on XFacebookGabMindsTruth Social and Gettr.



Ähnliche Nachrichten