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

Ron Paul: Supreme Court Takes Two Steps Forward, One Step Back.

SCOTUS.jpg

If the courts will not protect online speech from the government, then Congress must so do by passing the Free Speech Protection Act.

We can all probably agree that this has been one of the strangest Julys in memory. From the attempt on Trump’s Life to the Republican National Convention to the bizarre “coup” against Biden in the Democratic Party. With all this, it’s easy to forget some truly momentous events that happened this month.

For example, the Supreme Court recently handed down three decisions of particular interest to defenders of individual liberty and limited, constitutional government. In two of these cases, the court limited the ability of federal agencies to exercise legislative and judicial authority. Unfortunately, in the third one the court refused to protect free speech from government officials.

In the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which dealt with federal regulations requiring commercial fishers to pay the costs of having federal inspectors on board their vessels, the Court overturned the Chevron deference. Created in the 1984 case of Chevron vs. Natural Resources Defense Council, Chevron deference requires federal courts to accept a federal agency’s interpretation of their statutorily granted powers as long as the agency’s interpretation is “reasonable’ and does not directly contradict federal statutes governing the agency.

The Chevon deference gives federal agencies almost unchecked authority to determine the scope of their authority. The agencies then enforce their interpretations of their powers via regulations. This combination of legislative and executive power violates the principle of separation of powers. Federal agencies also exercise judicial powers via the use of Administrative Law Judges (ALJs), who are employees of the federal agencies, to adjudicate cases brought by the agencies against American citizens. Fortunately, the Supreme Court also limited the power of ALJs the case of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) v. Jarkesy. In this case, the Court held that Congress violated the 7th Amendment right to a jury when it granted the SEC the power to impose fines on individuals accused of securities fraud.

Unfortunately, the Court failed to defend the people’s First Amendment rights against the administrative state when it refused to hear the case of Missouri v. Murphy. This is the lawsuit brought against the federal government by Americans who were censored by social media companies acting at the behest of government officials. Many of the censored posts contained information about COVID that, unlike the COVID misinformation produced by government, was based on facts and not fear.

The court ruled the plaintiff did not have standing to sue because social media companies removed posts without being coerced by the government and the government stopped pressuring social media companies to engage in censorship after the COVID panic subsided. These are irrelevant to the fact that government officials pressured private social media companies to remove certain posts and will likely do so in the future.

If the courts will not protect online speech from the government, then Congress must so do by passing the Free Speech Protection Act. This bill forbids federal employees from taking any action that interferes with American citizens ability to engage in First Amendment protected activity. Those who violate the rule will face fines, suspension, or dismissal, and could even be banned from future federal employment. Another important piece of legislation is the REINS act, which requires agencies to obtain Congressional approval for major regulations. Congress must also begin reading the budget of all regulatory agencies with the goal of eliminating all unconstitutional federal bureaucracies.

This article first appeared at RonPaulInstitute.org.



Ähnliche Nachrichten