Main menu

The Professor (Part 1)

(originally launched into cyberspace on 05/09/2007)

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:

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.


Larken Rose