Saturday, April 10, 2004



We can, at last, show everyone what we've (well, some of us; others of us are more recently awakened ;-) been trying to explain for decades.

Click here to learn the truth.

Some notes from me:

* In the presentation you'll see a reference to language in the tax laws which says "a class of gross income may include excluded income". (26 CFR 1.861(8)(a)(3)) Just to make this clear, the "excluded" takes precedence over the "include"-ing. As a way of illustrating this, suppose we were discussing the ingredients of Nestle candy bars and I told you "just go to the store and buy one of everything and bring them back here and we'll look at them". What I told you to purchase, "one of everything", would seem, if taken literally, to mean -- or "include" -- every item in the store. However, the conversation included only Nestle candy bars. Everything else in the store, while arguably "included" in my statement, was "excluded" by the fundamental context of our conversation. In this scenario, if you came back from the store with several semi trailers full of miscellaneous items and a bill for umpteen-thousand dollars, I would rightfully consider you a dolt. In order to prevent doltishness from manifesting fully, I might, had I known in advance of your doltitude, have issued you a warning like "my instruction to you may have included things which should be excluded" -- meaning, don't "buy one of everything" in the store, just "buy one of everything" from the Nestle company. Obviously, the context of a statement must be considered in order to understand the statement. Returning to the discussion of tax law, when the law says "a class of gross income may include excluded income", we have to understand about that wording that the exclusion takes precedence over the inclusion; that which is excluded by fundamental law (the Constitution) cannot be taxed even though it might be listed in categories of "gross income". Basically, the law has been sloppily worded (intentionally, in my opinion) so that the categories of "gross income" look very broad, and only when their context -- that is, what is taxable and what isn't -- is considered does their true meaning become clear, as their scope properly reduces to that which is truly taxable.

The obvious reply to the above is that, if you're a dolt, it would hardly be rational to expect a confusing statement such as "my instruction to you may have included things which should be excluded" to result in you having a clearer understanding of my meaning. Instead of that weird "clarification", I should simply state clearly what exactly I want you to do. That would be the usual way of making my intentions clear, and the reason it's the usual way is because thousands of years of human interaction have proven quite conclusively that it works the best. Compare this to how the government has handled things w/r to the 861 issue (and other issues, which I won't go into here).

* I sent in a few letters as part of "Operation Honest Inquiry". The only reply I ever got was a single copy of the infamous "Dennis Parizek" form letter, shown in the presentation. Lame. My government can't answer a few basic questions about the law, but it claims that MY QUESTIONS are frivolous? No, gummint, YOUR (non-)ANSWER is frivolous. Look up the definition of "frivolous", morons. (That's directed at the gummint, not you, my wonderful, brilliant, scholarly reader. Of course, you may also want to look up the word. ;-)

Try it yourself. Ask the government -- or your local tax "professional" -- if you're supposed to use the regulations under section 861 of the Internal Revenue Code to determine how much taxable income you have. See if they will tell you THEIR POSITION on the law. (If the question is frivolous, it should be REALLY EASY to answer... right?)

* Over the past 6 years, I've studied the 861 issue and other issues related to tax law rather extensively, as you already know if you've read my previous blog entries. I have a copy of the Internal Revenue Code sitting right next to me at my desk, which I purchased in 1998, and have marked it over the years with my own hand to facilitate returning to important sections. I've made 3 trips across the country and one from Portland to San Jose in my involvement with this issue. I've argued with an attorney about it. I've read what the IRS (and others, like Dan Evans) says about "tax protester arguments". I've written a letter to Judge John McBryde, who conducted the atrocious sham trial of Dick Simkanin, about tax law problems (posted here in my blog and elsewhere), a copy of which was sent to him and signed for by one of his assistants (no reply so far, BTW). I've sent a copy to Simkanin and one to his lawyer, Arch McColl, and gotten replies from each. I've met Joe Banister, John Turner, Sherry Jackson, Bob Schulz, John Kotmair, Gordon Phillips, ICE, Devvy Kidd, Bill Benson, Red Beckman, and hundreds of other people who have studied this issue. Nothing in those thousands of hours of study and action leads me to any other conclusion than that the U.S. tax system is fraudulent. As noted in the video, I'm not saying "I don't like what the law says" I'm saying "The law doesn't say what you think it says". Your government is coming back from the store with semi trailers, folks!

* If the government had an answer -- if there WERE any answer! -- we'd have gotten it by now. It's time to stand up. Otherwise, it's time to admit you are a supine, spineless, pants-wetting, quivering, sniveling, boot-licking, cowardly, reliable, loyal, ANKLE-GRABBING CATAMITE -- voluntarily -- and that you are INTENTIONALLY condemning your posterity to be the same -- involuntarily.

Thursday, April 08, 2004

LOL. What a surprise, eh? ;-)

Grammar God!
You are a GRAMMAR GOD!

If your mission in life is not already to
preserve the English tongue, it should be.
Congratulations and thank you!

How grammatically sound are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

BTW, in case you're thinking "That's easy! Ask me the questions, bridgekeeper. I'm not afraid.", you might want to view this list.