I spoke with Charles “Hos” Hoskins today; Charles is the Maricopa county treasurer. He and his accomplices forcibly take over four hundred million dollars from people in the Phoenix valley every year. You’re not asked to pay, you’re ordered to pay and if you don’t he’ll send armed men to just take your property. So I called to ask some questions about how he goes about taking that money.
Charles claimed to have a problem understanding how his accomplices operate. I asked about the basic premise – if I’m physically in Arizona, then the laws of the state applied to me – he claimed he had to be an attorney to answer that. This was going to be a tough call. I can’t say if he was being genuine or not.
I asked if I forced people to give me money would he consider me a criminal and he agreed that it was extortion and robbery. I agree; when you force people to give you money it’s robbery. Charles didn’t like when I asked him why it wasn’t extortion and robbery when he and those called governments do it. He claimed:
That’s a ridiculous question.
Because “governments” are such wonderful people to even question them is “ridiculous”. I question this and he laughs and wants to know what my “story line” is. He also claims I’m all over the place. So I ask again: Why is the same action taken by me, forcing someone to give me money, extortion and robbery and it’s not when you do it?
[Charles laughs] Are you serious?
I ask him directly “How is it different then, when you take property by force, when you take money by force, and under threat, how is that not extortion and robbery?” His response?
Because it’s within the law.
So I go back to my original question and ask him what facts he relies on to prove the constitution and laws of the state apply to me just because I’m physically in Arizona? Charles does not like this and accuses me of trying to “create a story” based on my assumptions and points that are “so far unrealistic” he doesn’t want to be a part of it and doesn’t want me to broadcast the call. The standard hang up follows when I ask him what assumption I made.
It’s obvious Charles cannot defend his extortion any more and must hang up. Always, always point out the gun under all that paperwork. That’s how we gut their false perception of legitimacy and expose them for the criminals they are.
Here is another example of the psychopathic double standard you get with the government concept. Basic principals of right and wrong do not apply when you call yourself a government. Governments are men and women forcing people to pay them. It is extortion and robbery when I do it, but not when they do it. Why? Because the people calling themselves governments said it wasn’t. They gave themselves a free pass and their victims accept it instead of ignoring them or using defensive force to neutralize the attack.
By his own admission, what Charles does, to the tune of over $400,000,000 a year, is extortion. He and his accomplices wrote a “law” saying it was not robbery when they do it. A “law” Charles has no evidence applies to anyone in the first place. I’ve seen this insane idea somewhere before:
Governments are men and women forcing us to give them money. There is no evidence their “laws” apply to us. Governments are a criminal organization from top to bottom. This is what real journalism is about; asking tough questions and exposing criminals for what they are. If Charles and his accomplices were a legitimate organization and not a gang of criminals, then they would be able to prove it.
But when you force people to pay you no amount of public relations can cover it.
18 Aug 2014 update: Robert Pizorno is the public info officer for the Maricopa county assessor’s office. He was not very happy with my questions. While Charles said the question was “ridiculous”, Robert said my questions were “stupid.” Same political tactic to avoid not being able to answer the question.
They, those called “government”, claim their “laws” apply to everyone. But, when we ask for proof, the evidence the argument is based, we get everything but facts. If there was evidence proving the “law” applied, then they would just provide it.
Tough Questions? More like stupid questions.
Because when your salary and pension have been forcibly taken from peaceful people, you don’t need evidence or professionalism.