Subject: The Professor (Part 1) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Subscriber, For those of you who missed it, the radio show debate between me and Professor Siegel is now archived (in MP3 format) at the bottom of the following web page: http://www.getonyoursoapbox.com/podcast/ Since we didn't have time to get into the substance of the issue on the show, I'll give a few comments here. After my opening statement, in which I summarized the issue, professor Siegel did his introductory monologue. Of note, whereas mine was all about the law, his opening comments avoided talking about the law entirely. After asserting that my conclusions are wrong, he said this: "What I would like your listeners to understand is this isn't really subject to reasonable debate." Right out of the starting gate, he's going for psychological tricks instead of evidence and logic. Implying that no one "reasonable" would ever think such a thing, or would even CONSIDER or DEBATE such a topic, is a direct insult to every one of you who is even curious about the issue. Next, he used the strawman logical fallacy, by saying: "The question, 'Is there an income tax?' is just not subject to reasonable debate." Who is suggesting that there ISN'T an income tax? Not me. He then said: "This question has been to court hundreds of times, perhaps thousands of times." That's absolutely untrue. But then he uses the guilt-by-association psychological trick, saying that my "argument" is "just one of many arguments people make." So he wants ALL theories and claims to be jumbled together in peoples' minds (which they often are anyway). He then said, with tax time coming up, "it would be irresponsible to suggest that there's really a debate about this." In addition to being condescending and arrogant, that statement includes an implied threat: you can get in trouble if you agree with the 861 evidence. That's true, but what does that have to do with whether something is true or not? Nothing. (As an aside, in passing he said that "It's healthy in a democracy that people should have some distrust of government." Yeah, and some distrust of legal "experts" too, who call a Constitutional Republic a "democracy.") He then made the laughable claim that our system of "checks and balances" makes sure the IRS wouldn't lie about the law, and that many federal judges have "independently investigated the law," and decided everyone owes the tax. He then argued another non-sequitur, saying that if I even might be right, there would be a thousand lawyers suing the government over it. Well, some have tried, and have learned the hard way that the system punishes anyone who doesn't spout the party line. But notice how all of his opening comments were about WHO asserts that we all owe, and not at all about what the LAW says. The exact same thing could have been said when all the learned minds and authorities said that the sun goes around the earth, and punished people who said otherwise. He would much rather focus on WHO says that we all owe the tax (lawyers, judges, etc.), instead of on what the law itself shows. When it was his turn to ask questions, his first question for me was basically, if I'm right, why did I go to prison? (He later admitted he didn't know the details of my trial.) Again, he dodged the evidence entirely, and went for the psychological tricks. I answered with a question: if the earth goes around the sun, why did Galileo go to prison? His response: "Well, Galileo lived at a rather different time. He didn't live in a free democratic society with independent judges making independent judgments about what the law is." So apparently NOW, unlike in the past, the "authorities" and "experts" are always right, and everyone they punish is always guilty. That's comforting. I then went through how our supposed objective, fair system made sure I couldn't present ANY evidence demonstrating my state of mind over the last eight years. (I also pointed out that my supposedly objective "judge" made glaringly obvious mistatements about the income tax laws, such as saying that Congress did not have the power to impose income taxes prior to the 16th Amendment.) He then tried to challenge my motives, by pointing out that I SELL a video, with the obvious implication being that, if I make money off of it, I shouldn't be trusted. His sails deflated, however, when I informed him that, after I get paid back the interest-free loan I gave the 861 Evidence mini-CD project years ago, I won't be getting any more from it. But again, what does his little motive- impugning stunt have to do with the EVIDENCE? Not a thing. But it is a lot easier than addressing the substance of the issue. (Incidentally, I must admit I'm getting a little tired of that stupid accusation. I now have to borrow another $80,000 to give to the IRS (they refused any installment agreement) just for "interest and penalties," for taking the stand I openly took. The court is also taking $16,000 more from us for telling the truth and obeying the law. That's all above and beyond the original taxes which we didn't owe but were coerced into paying. So pardon me if I think it's a little slimy for someone to allege that I'm just saying this stuff for my own financial benefit. Speaking of which, I've been spending many UNPAID hours completely redoing the "Taxable Income" report, which will be posted on the internet--for free, as always-- very soon.) After that, Mr. Siegel talked about the "consequences" of not paying, asking me "is it nice, is it moral, is it appropriate" for me to state my conclusions, knowing what can happen to people who disagree with the IRS? The implication is clearly that it's BAD to state an opinion that, if people agree with it, can get them in trouble. What a pathetic attitude. Mr. Siegel then argued that, of the 600,000 lawyers in the country, he didn't think even 1% agreed with me. Again, he wants the truth to be a popularity contest. (Of course, the vast majority of lawyers have never even looked into the issue anyway, so their opinions on the topic are utterly worthless.) In the next couple of messages, I'll cover some of the points which had to do with the actual evidence. But notice that nothing the professor said in his opening, or in his questions to me, was about the LAW. It was all about persuasion via logical fallacy (demonization, guilt-by-association, truth-by-popularity, expert- worship, etc.). Now why do you suppose a LAW professor didn't want to talk about the LAW? In the next message, you'll see. Sincerely, Larken Rose www.larkenrose.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify Version: Hush 2.5 wpwEAQECAAYFAkZCJPIACgkQGmVFo/iGj32LTgP/dQXBlWFd3ilakGX8Do5nDhjgRArM FmDRcnaQKoqeojBZjHp/ZO/6OmtBgdNluy8sccSM/DjeqMjYeMpUL5Y7uVLs1HNaZbH9 gsz9JHqT935wVL7QuPWBIWfU7cyd0bV0/sLOufy2rLB6VB364j+SIcw0VR9pjThX30h3 D+z40s0= =A9C3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Click here for free information on earning a criminal justice degree today. http://tagline.hushmail.com/fc/CAaCXv1S4xsR8aYnU4DWzVRznUcgspo2/ -------------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe, send a blank message to 861-on@mail-list.com To contact the list owner, send your message to 861-list-owner@mail-list.com