Subject: The Professor (Part 3) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Subscriber, I just had to insert a few comments at this point, ahead of the next message I was going to send. In response to an e-mail from someone saying he found my position more convincing that Professor Siegel's rebuttal, Mr. Siegel wrote this: >> If you have read those pages [from Siegel's site] >> and you still find Mr. Rose's arguments convincing, >> then I'm afraid I have little more to add, other >> than to ask this: do you really believe that every >> judge who has looked into this issue is mistaken? >> Do you really believe that all the law professors >> and lawyers that have looked into this issue is >> mistaken? Why do you believe that this one, >> untrained guy and disbelieve everyone who is >> so much better equipped to find the answer? First of all, a lot of lawyers HAVE come to the same conclusions I have. But I'm sure Mr. Siegel would dismiss them as "fringe kooks" (because remember, the issue is not up for "reasonable debate") so they don't count. But notice how he again resorts to the POPULARITY of a position as the supposed proof of its validity. And this from a LAW professor. If he is so well "equipped" to find the truth in the law, why does he so often run AWAY from the law and resort to logical fallacies? Incidentally, very few judges and lawyers HAVE looked into the position. Instead, they've heard the punch line, assumed it had to be wrong, and then tried to support their foregone conclusion. In fact, Mr. Siegel gives an excellent example of this. After arguing that 861 is only for international matters--that most of us should NOT look there--he eventually conceded that, according to 26 CFR 1.861-1 and 1.861-8, "you, or anyone else, whether a U.S. citizen or not, CAN USE SECTION 861 and following of the code to figure your gross income from sources within the United States, and then your taxable income from sources within the United States." He followed that with the (incorrect) claim that if you do, your income will show up as taxable. (I'll address that claim shortly.) He is not the first (or the second, or third) supposed "expert" who has CHANGED his position in order to maintain his foregone conclusion. I've gotten two obviously contradictory positions from different credentialed tax professionals and/or lawyers. They go something like this: a) Yes, you should look to 861 and its regs. b) Yes, they show your income to be taxable. a) No, you should not look to 861 and its regs. b) No, they don't show your income to be taxable. The only thing these claims have in common is the conclusion: "everyone owes!" But wait a second: if "Yes, you SHOULD look there," and "No, it does NOT show your income to be taxable," are both things that educated tax professionals (and government officials) can believe, why is it so impossible to believe both at once? Because the CONCLUSION they lead to is heresy: that most of us DON'T OWE federal income taxes. So the supposed "experts" will CHANGE the reasoning they use, as long as it still leads to the acceptable foregone conclusion. I spent a year in prison for believing I "can use section 861 and following of the code to figure [my] gross income from sources within the United States, and then [my] taxable income from sources within the United States," as Mr. Siegel put it. At trial the government never argued that 861 shows my income to be taxable; their entire case was that their clueless paper-pushers "TOLD" me I was NOT supposed to look there, so how could I possibly believe otherwise? I wonder what would happen if IRS bureaucrats "told" Professor Siegel that. Would he believe them? (Incidentally, my appeal will probably be heard in September. Apparently the Third Circuit court of Appeals is horrendously backlogged.) There are tell-tale signs when someone is using backwards logic: starting with a desired conclusion and then trying to justify it, instead of using the scientific method of letting evidence and logic lead us to the truth. Peoples' brains work very differently depending upon which they are doing: following the evidence or trying to bolster a foregone conclusion. For example, Mr. Siegel obviously does NOT know what the regs meant when they say that some income is EXEMPT from the federal income tax, not because of any statute, but because of the Constitution itself. He made one guess, which I proved wrong (stock dividends a la the Eisner case). After that, he showed no curiosity, and made no further guess, but instead changed the subject. Is it really so difficult for a supposed "expert" to say "I don't know"? Well, if his agenda is sustaining a position, yes, it is. (Incidentally, this is how lawyers are TRAINED to think. As paid advocates, their JOB is to start with the desired result, and work backwards trying to justify it, which is the OPPOSITE of what a truth-seeker does.) As I've often said, when watching the discussion of the 861 evidence, be mindful of human psychology as much as you are of the law. In the next few days I will be asking Mr. Siegel TWO simple questions. Watch carefully how he responds, and then decide if he is to be "trusted" (which is a term he likes to bring up). 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 wpwEAQECAAYFAkZN/cEACgkQGmVFo/iGj30AbgP/TrdeN2tNUrax8S0QSEEdpVcY5oA0 fK43SC6m1sHhJ8eBaig8T/+B8H4WRO2CCEwL8ahHXoTTbjlIK46SqZ90BawgyYMg726c ACdOWSwZ0cQr5POeLxXdfXqeSCFzVH8JqofMNjibMRYZSxJHK5WzR70FwrnJOxnuR6C7 TOuyOCU= =Mxvq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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