Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language
Detected language: English
[00:00.000 --> 00:13.000]  Hello Liberty-loving Patriots! Welcome to the Lucid Libertarian with Laurie Anne Show.
[00:13.000 --> 00:21.000]  Please be sure to tune in Sunday nights from 6pm to 8pm Pacific Time, 9 to 11pm Eastern,
[00:21.000 --> 00:27.000]  to discuss current events, news, and political opinion with Lucid Libertarian Flair.
[00:27.000 --> 00:33.000]  Be prepared folks, we often go into an optional extended third hour.
[00:33.000 --> 00:41.000]  This show advocates for liberty, freedom, our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and limited government,
[00:41.000 --> 00:48.000]  while speaking against corporate and government corruption, tyranny, and the globalist Great Reset Agenda
[00:48.000 --> 00:52.000]  that undermines our precious American sovereignty.
[00:52.000 --> 00:55.000]  Discussions here are unscripted and free-flowing,
[00:55.000 --> 01:01.000]  so sometimes conversations wander off in unpredictable directions.
[01:01.000 --> 01:08.000]  This is the switchboard for Dave Champion, and I think he might be in the switchboard,
[01:08.000 --> 01:18.000]  and I think he might be raising his hand, so let me try to introduce him again.
[01:19.000 --> 01:23.000]  He was first on my show back in March of last year.
[01:23.000 --> 01:28.000]  We had a great conversation, I'm really looking forward to having Dave Champion back on.
[01:28.000 --> 01:37.000]  Make sure to go to Rumble, and look up Dave Champion, and follow him on Rumble.
[01:37.000 --> 01:44.000]  Dave Champion PhD on Rumble, follow him, check out his videos, he does great stuff.
[01:44.000 --> 01:50.000]  He's very fact-oriented, and he presents a lot of great information,
[01:50.000 --> 01:56.000]  especially complicated information like legislation and scientific studies,
[01:56.000 --> 02:02.000]  and he does a great job of putting it in that regular person that doesn't,
[02:02.000 --> 02:07.000]  that isn't very savvy with those types of things to understand,
[02:07.000 --> 02:13.000]  so I am going to go ahead and bring him on.
[02:13.000 --> 02:15.000]  Hello, hello.
[02:15.000 --> 02:18.000]  Hey, welcome back to the show.
[02:18.000 --> 02:22.000]  We finally are doing a round two.
[02:22.000 --> 02:23.000]  Groovy, groovy.
[02:23.000 --> 02:24.000]  So how are you?
[02:24.000 --> 02:26.000]  What's up?
[02:26.000 --> 02:32.000]  Oh, just a beautiful Sunday, had a nice day, got to the gym, got back home,
[02:32.000 --> 02:34.000]  had a little dinner, and now I'm with you.
[02:34.000 --> 02:36.000]  What could be better?
[02:36.000 --> 02:37.000]  Let's get into it.
[02:37.000 --> 02:42.000]  So last time that you were on, we talked a lot about COVID,
[02:42.000 --> 02:49.000]  and we ran out of time to talk about income tax, so I want to hit that up first.
[02:49.000 --> 02:53.000]  Federal income tax, especially since the filing season,
[02:53.000 --> 02:56.000]  and I know that you've done a lot of great videos on it,
[02:56.000 --> 03:00.000]  and I want to encourage everybody to go to Rumble and watch your videos,
[03:00.000 --> 03:06.000]  but for people out there that have never seen your stuff or read your book,
[03:06.000 --> 03:12.000]  go ahead and tell me about your past experience, like with the IRS,
[03:12.000 --> 03:19.000]  and let's dive into the scam that is the income tax.
[03:19.000 --> 03:23.000]  Okay, I'll try and do the historical part quickly.
[03:23.000 --> 03:26.000]  I owned my own business.
[03:26.000 --> 03:31.000]  I had an accountant on retainer, was minding my own business,
[03:31.000 --> 03:34.000]  and started getting letters from the IRS.
[03:34.000 --> 03:39.000]  I didn't know anything about taxation or the IRS at that point and didn't want to,
[03:39.000 --> 03:41.000]  and so I took those lists.
[03:41.000 --> 03:42.000]  I didn't even open the letters.
[03:42.000 --> 03:45.000]  I took them to my accountant and I said, I'm getting letters from the IRS.
[03:45.000 --> 03:46.000]  I pay you.
[03:46.000 --> 03:48.000]  Deal with this.
[03:48.000 --> 03:52.000]  And I thought that would do it.
[03:52.000 --> 03:57.000]  If you want to keep getting paid by me, straighten this out.
[03:57.000 --> 04:00.000]  Several weeks later, I walked into the bank and I had a very good relationship
[04:00.000 --> 04:04.000]  with the tellers there, and as I approached one of the tellers,
[04:04.000 --> 04:08.000]  as I approached the window, she burst out crying and said, I had to do it.
[04:08.000 --> 04:09.000]  I had to do it.
[04:09.000 --> 04:11.000]  I'm like, what?
[04:11.000 --> 04:17.000]  And she said that she had to give $32,000 from my company's payroll account
[04:17.000 --> 04:21.000]  to the IRS based on them, the bank having received a levy notice.
[04:21.000 --> 04:26.000]  And of course, $32,000 is never wonderful to have disappear,
[04:26.000 --> 04:31.000]  but it's even worse when it's a payroll account because that's not my money.
[04:31.000 --> 04:34.000]  That's money that my employees had earned in good faith.
[04:34.000 --> 04:39.000]  So I had to go scrape up $32,000 to cover what I owed my employees.
[04:39.000 --> 04:42.000]  I was able to do that, which made me feel good.
[04:42.000 --> 04:45.000]  And I was sharing it with some friends a couple of nights later at dinner,
[04:45.000 --> 04:47.000]  and they started laughing.
[04:47.000 --> 04:49.000]  I was a little taken aback.
[04:49.000 --> 04:52.000]  I don't know that laughing is the correct response, guys,
[04:52.000 --> 04:55.000]  to just having lost $32,000.
[04:55.000 --> 05:01.000]  And they said, if you knew what we know, you'd be laughing too.
[05:01.000 --> 05:06.000]  And so they gave me the name of two books.
[05:06.000 --> 05:09.000]  They refused to tell me anything more about the income tax.
[05:09.000 --> 05:11.000]  And ordinarily, I wouldn't have even bought these books,
[05:11.000 --> 05:15.000]  but these two gentlemen were highly intelligent, a lot of integrity.
[05:16.000 --> 05:23.000]  They are not the kind of people who would share things with other people
[05:23.000 --> 05:26.000]  who they were close with unless they'd done the research
[05:26.000 --> 05:28.000]  and knew those things to be factual.
[05:28.000 --> 05:31.000]  So by no means was I convicted.
[05:31.000 --> 05:35.000]  But I thought, you know, I didn't like what just happened,
[05:35.000 --> 05:39.000]  and I felt powerless because I didn't know anything about it.
[05:39.000 --> 05:44.000]  Somebody just stole $32,000 from me, and I didn't have a clue
[05:44.000 --> 05:47.000]  who was it, how did they do it, what does the law say?
[05:47.000 --> 05:49.000]  I've been in law enforcement, so immediately I went to the law.
[05:49.000 --> 05:51.000]  How can they do this?
[05:51.000 --> 05:54.000]  So I bought the two books, and I read the two books,
[05:54.000 --> 05:57.000]  and I went back to these gentlemen, and I said, OK, I did that.
[05:57.000 --> 05:59.000]  And I still wasn't convicted.
[05:59.000 --> 06:03.000]  But my curiosity was definitely piqued by what I read.
[06:03.000 --> 06:09.000]  There was enough question marks there that I couldn't let it go.
[06:09.000 --> 06:13.000]  You know, I'd served my country, I'd served my community.
[06:13.000 --> 06:16.000]  I was, how can I phrase this?
[06:16.000 --> 06:19.000]  I was still young and idealistic back then,
[06:19.000 --> 06:28.000]  and I could not get my head around the fact that it looked like,
[06:28.000 --> 06:33.000]  it wasn't certain, but it looked like the government was scamming,
[06:33.000 --> 06:36.000]  the federal government was scamming the American people.
[06:36.000 --> 06:39.000]  And I just couldn't abide that.
[06:39.000 --> 06:42.000]  So I started the research process,
[06:42.000 --> 06:45.000]  and little did I know what I was getting myself into.
[06:45.000 --> 06:47.000]  Talk about it over your head.
[06:47.000 --> 06:54.000]  And 17 years later, I published Income Tax Shattering the Mist.
[06:54.000 --> 06:57.000]  It is the culmination of 17 years of research.
[06:57.000 --> 07:01.000]  I think it would be fair to say I'm the national expert
[07:01.000 --> 07:04.000]  on who Congress has imposed the income tax
[07:04.000 --> 07:07.000]  and who Congress has not imposed the income tax on.
[07:07.000 --> 07:11.000]  And Income Tax Shattering the Mist has been out for 12 years now.
[07:11.000 --> 07:15.000]  It has never received less by readers,
[07:15.000 --> 07:17.000]  never received a review less than four stars,
[07:17.000 --> 07:19.000]  and the overwhelming majority are five stars.
[07:19.000 --> 07:24.000]  And I am very proud to say that tens of thousands of people have,
[07:24.000 --> 07:27.000]  at the conclusion of Income Tax Shattering the Mist,
[07:27.000 --> 07:30.000]  been able to safely, there's a key word,
[07:30.000 --> 07:35.000]  safely leave the income tax scam behind and keep what's theirs
[07:35.000 --> 07:37.000]  and never hear from the IRS ever again
[07:37.000 --> 07:41.000]  because they understand what the law really says
[07:41.000 --> 07:45.000]  rather than what people have told them the law says.
[07:45.000 --> 07:49.000]  So that's sort of a culmination of from the beginning to where we're at today.
[07:49.000 --> 07:56.000]  So describe a little bit about what does the law actually say
[07:56.000 --> 08:00.000]  when it comes to who is supposed to be paying the federal income tax
[08:00.000 --> 08:03.000]  and who isn't.
[08:04.000 --> 08:06.000]  Okay. I think the way I'd like to approach this,
[08:06.000 --> 08:09.000]  because obviously I said there are 17 years
[08:09.000 --> 08:11.000]  with the research in Income Tax Shattering the Mist.
[08:11.000 --> 08:16.000]  It would be impossible for me to share all of the things the law says here
[08:16.000 --> 08:17.000]  in this conversation.
[08:17.000 --> 08:21.000]  So I think what we'll do is start with the conclusions,
[08:21.000 --> 08:25.000]  and then we'll back up the conclusions with some information.
[08:25.000 --> 08:26.000]  If people want to know more, of course,
[08:26.000 --> 08:28.000]  I encourage them to get Income Tax Shattering the Mist
[08:28.000 --> 08:30.000]  and become fully educated.
[08:30.000 --> 08:35.000]  People don't need to spend 17 years of their life as I did.
[08:35.000 --> 08:38.000]  All they need to do is read one book to know the truth,
[08:38.000 --> 08:40.000]  and then once they know the truth,
[08:40.000 --> 08:42.000]  they can decide what they want to do about that.
[08:42.000 --> 08:48.000]  So the conclusion, the bottom line, the reality of the income tax
[08:48.000 --> 08:53.000]  is that Congress has imposed the income tax on what the law calls
[08:53.000 --> 08:59.000]  classes of persons, three classes of persons and no more.
[08:59.000 --> 09:01.000]  The class, by the way, is just a category.
[09:01.000 --> 09:03.000]  It's like a class action suit.
[09:03.000 --> 09:05.000]  We've all heard that phrase.
[09:05.000 --> 09:08.000]  And of course, for instance, if it was the lawsuit
[09:08.000 --> 09:11.000]  about the silicone brushed implants and Dow Corning,
[09:11.000 --> 09:18.000]  the class would be limited to those women who had the silicone brushed implants.
[09:18.000 --> 09:19.000]  That's how you define the class.
[09:19.000 --> 09:23.000]  So we're talking about the same concept here.
[09:23.000 --> 09:27.000]  So Congress has imposed the income tax on three classes,
[09:27.000 --> 09:33.000]  and those classes are non-resident aliens with U.S. source income,
[09:33.000 --> 09:38.000]  foreign corporations with U.S. source income,
[09:38.000 --> 09:44.000]  and U.S. citizens residing abroad with foreign earned income.
[09:44.000 --> 09:46.000]  That's it.
[09:46.000 --> 09:50.000]  Now, I know for your listeners, that's almost certainly a shock
[09:50.000 --> 09:53.000]  because it conflicts, to say the least,
[09:53.000 --> 09:57.000]  with what they've been hearing since they were young enough to understand,
[09:57.000 --> 09:59.000]  you're probably six, seven, eight, nine years old,
[09:59.000 --> 10:02.000]  when they heard adults talk about the income tax.
[10:02.000 --> 10:04.000]  And they've heard everybody owes the income tax.
[10:04.000 --> 10:06.000]  If you work in America and you make some money,
[10:06.000 --> 10:08.000]  you have to pay some to the federal government.
[10:08.000 --> 10:12.000]  And I get why people believe that.
[10:12.000 --> 10:15.000]  It is a pervasive myth, and it is that.
[10:15.000 --> 10:17.000]  It is a myth.
[10:17.000 --> 10:24.000]  The founding fathers understood how rapacious government was and is,
[10:24.000 --> 10:28.000]  and they understood that if they didn't limit the powers of the federal government,
[10:28.000 --> 10:30.000]  I don't know how many of your listeners are aware,
[10:30.000 --> 10:32.000]  the states have something called general jurisdiction,
[10:32.000 --> 10:35.000]  but the federal government has limited jurisdiction.
[10:35.000 --> 10:38.000]  By that it means the federal government can only do things
[10:38.000 --> 10:42.000]  that are specifically permissible by the Constitution.
[10:42.000 --> 10:49.000]  And it does not have the same kind of general jurisdiction that the states do.
[10:49.000 --> 10:53.000]  The founding fathers were very forward-looking in regard to taxation,
[10:53.000 --> 11:02.000]  and the founding fathers were completely committed to property rights.
[11:02.000 --> 11:06.000]  Many of them, there are numerous quotes from the founding fathers
[11:06.000 --> 11:14.000]  that say essentially one of the primary aspects of personal liberty is the right of property.
[11:14.000 --> 11:19.000]  If you don't have the right to property, then you don't have personal liberty.
[11:19.000 --> 11:27.000]  And that included John Locke, who was one of the enlightenment thinkers,
[11:27.000 --> 11:31.000]  and he was one of the huge influencers on Jefferson and people of that era.
[11:31.000 --> 11:38.000]  He talked about the fact that labor and the fruits of your labor was the first property,
[11:38.000 --> 11:42.000]  because with your labor you can create other forms of property.
[11:42.000 --> 11:50.000]  And that's what influenced people like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison was that concept.
[11:50.000 --> 11:56.000]  And they understood that the federal government would be happy to take your property,
[11:56.000 --> 11:58.000]  that you earn with your labor.
[11:58.000 --> 12:00.000]  But you work and you create something for yourself,
[12:00.000 --> 12:05.000]  and the federal government would come along and take it if the founders didn't restrict it.
[12:05.000 --> 12:09.000]  And the founders did restrict that in the Constitution.
[12:09.000 --> 12:12.000]  And again, it's too complex to get in here today,
[12:12.000 --> 12:18.000]  but it basically is rooted in the definitions of the founders' understanding of direct tax and indirect tax and so forth.
[12:18.000 --> 12:22.000]  People will say at this point in a conversation, people will often say,
[12:22.000 --> 12:25.000]  I hear you, but the 16th Amendment changed that.
[12:25.000 --> 12:30.000]  The 16th Amendment altered what the founders put originally in the Constitution
[12:30.000 --> 12:35.000]  and allows the federal government now to tax your labor.
[12:35.000 --> 12:38.000]  And then they will tell you, I know this because when I was in high school,
[12:38.000 --> 12:41.000]  that's what it said in my history book.
[12:41.000 --> 12:45.000]  However, that's complete nonsense.
[12:45.000 --> 12:48.000]  Yeah, that's where the deceit begins, right?
[12:48.000 --> 12:53.000]  Yes. If you read the seminal case on the 16th Amendment's jurisdiction and authority,
[12:53.000 --> 12:59.000]  which is called the Shaver v. Union Pacific Railroad, and it was decided by the Supreme Court in 1916,
[12:59.000 --> 13:03.000]  when you read that decision, the court doesn't say any such thing
[13:03.000 --> 13:08.000]  that it allows the government to tax your labor and take your property.
[13:08.000 --> 13:16.000]  In reality, all the 16th Amendment did was correct an improper decision
[13:16.000 --> 13:20.000]  by the Supreme Court that took place in 1895 called the Pollock decision.
[13:20.000 --> 13:29.000]  The court in that case made an error, and the 16th Amendment was meant to correct that error,
[13:29.000 --> 13:33.000]  to say, okay, so if that's the Supreme Court law of the land, then we have to correct it
[13:33.000 --> 13:36.000]  and put it back the way things were intended to be.
[13:36.000 --> 13:38.000]  That's what they did with the 16th Amendment.
[13:38.000 --> 13:45.000]  It had absolutely zero to do with taxing your labor when you live in one of the 50 states of the Union
[13:45.000 --> 13:49.000]  or earn your own domestic source income. Zero to do with that.
[13:49.000 --> 13:54.000]  But it does, in fact, say in high school textbooks that it allowed the government
[13:54.000 --> 13:56.000]  to impose an income tax on the American people.
[13:56.000 --> 14:03.000]  By the way, the income tax we have today and Congress having imposed it on the three classes,
[14:03.000 --> 14:11.000]  Congress could have done that in 1895. They could have done it at any time they wanted to.
[14:11.000 --> 14:16.000]  It didn't require the 16th Amendment to do it because the income tax that we have today
[14:16.000 --> 14:22.000]  was always constitutional from the first day the United States Constitution became effective.
[14:22.000 --> 14:26.000]  Interesting. Very interesting stuff.
[14:26.000 --> 14:31.000]  And like you said, just because that amendment's there doesn't mean that Congress
[14:31.000 --> 14:37.000]  has ever changed the law on who the income tax applies to.
[14:38.000 --> 14:42.000]  Like you said, those three tiers.
[14:42.000 --> 14:48.000]  Which repeat for me again what those three tiers were.
[14:48.000 --> 14:54.000]  The classes are nonresident aliens, which there's a very specific definition of that at the tax bill.
[14:54.000 --> 14:58.000]  We don't need to get into it tonight, but clearly it's not me and you, right?
[14:58.000 --> 15:03.000]  Nonresident aliens with U.S. source income.
[15:03.000 --> 15:08.000]  Foreign corporations with U.S. source income.
[15:08.000 --> 15:16.000]  And U.S. citizens residing abroad with foreign earned income, which is a very narrow and specific class.
[15:16.000 --> 15:21.000]  And since it involves, I rarely talk about it because it involves such a minute number of people
[15:21.000 --> 15:27.000]  in comparison to the understanding of income tax here domestically.
[15:27.000 --> 15:32.000]  Yeah, there's not a whole lot of us living abroad earning income.
[15:32.000 --> 15:35.000]  Yeah, and that makes sense.
[15:35.000 --> 15:40.000]  The vast majority of us are residing right here in the United States.
[15:40.000 --> 15:49.000]  We are citizens and we're working, earning our income within the jurisdiction of the United States.
[15:49.000 --> 15:59.000]  And so with those three classes, really the vast majority of us it doesn't apply to.
[15:59.000 --> 16:01.000]  Absolutely correct.
[16:01.000 --> 16:08.000]  But I should add that the, how can I do this succinctly?
[16:09.000 --> 16:19.000]  The Treasury Department, the Secretary of the Treasury is the top executive branch authority over taxation.
[16:19.000 --> 16:28.000]  Congress passed, we all know the thing, Congress passes the laws, then the executive branch implements the laws,
[16:28.000 --> 16:33.000]  and the courts interpret the laws, right? We've all heard that since we were in school.
[16:33.000 --> 16:41.000]  So the executive branch administrates the law, carries out Congress's laws.
[16:41.000 --> 16:50.000]  So the top authority in the executive branch in carrying forward Congress's laws is the Secretary of the Treasury.
[16:50.000 --> 17:00.000]  The Secretary of the Treasury is the one whose office approves United States income tax forms.
[17:00.000 --> 17:06.000]  And here's a, so I've often said in real estate, we all know the law of real estate, right?
[17:06.000 --> 17:09.000]  Location, location, location.
[17:09.000 --> 17:15.000]  The preeminent rule of law is context, context, context.
[17:15.000 --> 17:20.000]  That's lost on a lot of people when they begin to look at law, but if they keep that in mind,
[17:20.000 --> 17:26.000]  that will help them considerably if they begin to self-study law.
[17:26.000 --> 17:29.000]  The preeminent rule is context, context, context.
[17:29.000 --> 17:35.000]  So the Secretary of the Treasury contextually only has authority,
[17:35.000 --> 17:47.000]  is only granted authority by the statutes passed by Congress to create tax forms for people upon whom Congress has imposed the income tax.
[17:47.000 --> 17:58.000]  The Secretary of the Treasury has zero authority to create tax forms for people upon whom Congress has not imposed the income tax.
[17:58.000 --> 18:02.000]  That wouldn't be within the Secretary of the Treasury's purview.
[18:02.000 --> 18:07.000]  Example I often give is if you owned a small shoe repair business,
[18:07.000 --> 18:14.000]  what authority would NASA have to create a document you have to fill out to repair shoes in your little shop, right?
[18:14.000 --> 18:18.000]  None, zero. NASA doesn't have jurisdiction over shoe repair.
[18:18.000 --> 18:20.000]  Well, the same way.
[18:20.000 --> 18:30.000]  The Secretary of the Treasury has authority only over those people within the United States upon whom Congress has imposed the income tax and no one else.
[18:30.000 --> 18:36.000]  So the forms that the Secretary creates also can only be for those people.
[18:37.000 --> 18:44.000]  Now understanding that, the Secretary has created a form that a lot of people who work for somebody else know.
[18:44.000 --> 18:49.000]  It's called a W-4. People who own their own business.
[18:49.000 --> 18:55.000]  The Secretary has created another form that's familiar to business owners, the W-9.
[18:55.000 --> 18:57.000]  Now what did I just say?
[18:57.000 --> 19:04.000]  The Secretary only has authority to create forms for people upon whom Congress has imposed the income tax.
[19:04.000 --> 19:10.000]  So the W-9 and the W-4 are designed for people.
[19:10.000 --> 19:18.000]  The boundaries of its authority of those forms is people upon whom Congress has imposed the income tax.
[19:18.000 --> 19:28.000]  Now understanding that context, if you take a W-4 or you take a W-9, you fill it out, you sign it under penalty of perjury,
[19:28.000 --> 19:33.000]  and you hand it to somebody who's paying you money.
[19:33.000 --> 19:37.000]  Contextually, what did you just sign?
[19:37.000 --> 19:44.000]  What is the meaning of your signature under penalty of perjury on that document?
[19:44.000 --> 19:50.000]  What did the person who signed it just attest to?
[19:50.000 --> 19:55.000]  They attested that the income tax applies to them.
[19:55.000 --> 19:59.000]  They're saying, yeah, go ahead and tax me.
[19:59.000 --> 20:01.000]  I give you my permission, right?
[20:01.000 --> 20:04.000]  Yes, absolutely. I'm going to phrase it just a little bit differently.
[20:04.000 --> 20:12.000]  But yes, a little bit differently, they attested to the fact that they have determined the tax applies to them.
[20:12.000 --> 20:16.000]  Because nobody else can – you sign it under penalty of perjury.
[20:16.000 --> 20:19.000]  Nobody can force you to sign something under penalty of perjury, right?
[20:19.000 --> 20:26.000]  So by signing it under penalty of perjury, you're attesting I looked into it,
[20:26.000 --> 20:33.000]  and I determined I am a person upon whom Congress has imposed the income tax.
[20:33.000 --> 20:39.000]  That is the legal implication of signing and submitting those forms.
[20:39.000 --> 20:41.000]  So people do that.
[20:41.000 --> 20:48.000]  And when I say they attested, they have determined they are someone upon whom Congress has imposed the income tax.
[20:48.000 --> 20:51.000]  I'll ask you a question. We all know the answer.
[20:51.000 --> 20:59.000]  People who signed W-9s and people who signed W-4s and handed them to other people, have they ever read tax law, even a word of it?
[20:59.000 --> 21:02.000]  Most have not, no.
[21:02.000 --> 21:10.000]  No? And so having never read a word of tax law, they're saying, their hands in the air,
[21:10.000 --> 21:18.000]  Oh, me, me, me, me, I'm the guy, tax me, please, over here, hey, I've got some money, please take my money.
[21:18.000 --> 21:24.000]  I'm voluntarily saying that you can take my money for the income tax.
[21:24.000 --> 21:27.000]  You remember the old Soviet Union.
[21:27.000 --> 21:35.000]  And one of the things that Americans allegedly despised about the old Soviet Union
[21:35.000 --> 21:44.000]  was the way the KGB had compromised so many citizens in the Soviet Union
[21:44.000 --> 21:54.000]  that by some estimates, one out of every three Soviet citizens was snitching on their neighbors to the government.
[21:54.000 --> 22:03.000]  Okay. And back in the day, and I was an adult during the time when the Soviet Union was still in place.
[22:03.000 --> 22:11.000]  And the fact that Soviet citizens would rat out their neighbors was one of the things that people in America would hold up and say,
[22:11.000 --> 22:16.000]  This is proof that that is an evil system.
[22:16.000 --> 22:20.000]  When people want freedom, when people want personal liberty,
[22:20.000 --> 22:27.000]  when people don't want to be micromanaged by a dictatorial oppressive government, their neighbors are ratting them off.
[22:27.000 --> 22:31.000]  That's proof that the Soviet system is evil.
[22:31.000 --> 22:39.000]  So I want you to know with things like W-4s, which produce a W-2 at the end of the year, 1099s,
[22:39.000 --> 22:43.000]  I'm sorry, W-9s produce at the end of the year 1099.
[22:43.000 --> 22:55.000]  We have a level of snitching in this country that would make a KGB agent weep tears of admiration.
[22:55.000 --> 22:58.000]  I like the way you put that.
[22:58.000 --> 23:07.000]  But what makes it, in my opinion, my view, what makes it exponentially worse is the people who are saying,
[23:07.000 --> 23:11.000]  You can't work here unless you sign a W-4.
[23:11.000 --> 23:18.000]  Or, I'm sorry, I can't cut you a check for the work you did unless you give me a W-9.
[23:18.000 --> 23:26.000]  They, in their complete abject ignorance, because they've never read the law either,
[23:26.000 --> 23:36.000]  in their complete abject ignorance, they are pretentious and presumptuous and arrogant.
[23:36.000 --> 23:41.000]  Oh, I'm just doing the right thing for my Soviet government.
[23:41.000 --> 23:45.000]  They have no idea and no shame.
[23:45.000 --> 23:50.000]  They have no idea about the law and no shame about what they're doing to their fellow citizens.
[23:50.000 --> 23:57.000]  They feel completely righteous about screwing over their fellow Americans.
[23:57.000 --> 24:00.000]  And they've never read a word of the law.
[24:00.000 --> 24:05.000]  They feel righteous about doing it because somebody told them to.
[24:05.000 --> 24:09.000]  If that isn't Soviet-style bullshit, I don't know what is.
[24:09.000 --> 24:15.000]  Screw your fellow citizens over because somebody in authority told you to.
[24:15.000 --> 24:22.000]  And that's what we do in America by the millions every single year.
[24:22.000 --> 24:25.000]  It's utterly repulsive.
[24:25.000 --> 24:26.000]  It really is.
[24:26.000 --> 24:34.000]  And going back to our founders, this is exactly the type of thing that they wanted to avoid
[24:34.000 --> 24:41.000]  because we were, prior to the American Revolution, what was happening.
[24:41.000 --> 24:47.000]  Just read our Declaration of Independence and it gives you a very good insight
[24:47.000 --> 24:52.000]  on the reasons why we declared our independence.
[24:52.000 --> 24:59.000]  And one of those reasons is the old proverbial phrase, taxation without representation.
[24:59.000 --> 25:06.000]  King of England was imposing taxes upon more taxes without the consent of the governed.
[25:06.000 --> 25:10.000]  And that kept growing.
[25:10.000 --> 25:17.000]  And then we have the Boston Tea Party and stuff like that because one of the taxes was on tea,
[25:17.000 --> 25:21.000]  something that was pretty much a staple in every household.
[25:21.000 --> 25:24.000]  And so you're right.
[25:24.000 --> 25:31.000]  You know, this is exactly what our founders wanted to avoid by restricting the federal government's
[25:31.000 --> 25:40.000]  authority to impose income taxes on people because they knew that that happens.
[25:40.000 --> 25:43.000]  It's going to be abused.
[25:43.000 --> 25:46.000]  And we're going to end up being tax slaves.
[25:46.000 --> 25:49.000]  And yet here we are.
[25:49.000 --> 25:56.000]  And it's through this scam because, like you said, the law has never really changed
[25:56.000 --> 26:00.000]  on who the income tax applies to.
[26:00.000 --> 26:09.000]  And yet here we are being conned into signing these W-4s or whatever saying,
[26:09.000 --> 26:15.000]  yes, the income tax applies to me, go ahead and take my money.
[26:15.000 --> 26:24.000]  And then the people that take your money, your employer or if you're self-employed,
[26:24.000 --> 26:30.000]  you have to declare that for yourself, everything that stems from that.
[26:30.000 --> 26:41.000]  It's absolutely mind-boggling when you start to really think about what a huge scam this really is.
[26:41.000 --> 26:42.000]  Yes.
[26:42.000 --> 26:48.000]  And you can imagine, if you think back, somebody like George Washington,
[26:48.000 --> 26:52.000]  if somebody had come up to George Washington and said,
[26:52.000 --> 26:58.000]  I'm going to insist that you sign this form allowing the federal government to come and take your money
[26:58.000 --> 27:05.000]  at the end of the year, and if you refuse, I'm just not going to pay you for the work you've already done.
[27:05.000 --> 27:08.000]  Washington would have shot the guy in the face.
[27:08.000 --> 27:09.000]  Absolutely.
[27:09.000 --> 27:10.000]  But it's worse than that.
[27:10.000 --> 27:13.000]  They're not even taking the money from you at the end of the year.
[27:13.000 --> 27:17.000]  They're taking it from you throughout the year.
[27:17.000 --> 27:26.000]  And then the purpose of filing your taxes is to go, hey, I overpaid you,
[27:26.000 --> 27:29.000]  and now the government owes me this money.
[27:29.000 --> 27:31.000]  So it's even worse than that.
[27:31.000 --> 27:38.000]  So you're saying, go ahead and take my money on what you think should be taken out,
[27:38.000 --> 27:45.000]  and then I will file forms so I can basically beg you to get some of my money back that was overpaid.
[27:45.000 --> 27:46.000]  Yes.
[27:46.000 --> 27:53.000]  So when we talk about filing, of course, we're talking about the 1040, right?
[27:53.000 --> 28:01.000]  And it should interest people to know that the 1040 is not mentioned in any statute anywhere.
[28:01.000 --> 28:11.000]  Congress passed God knows how many statutes that in totality comprise what we call income tax law.
[28:11.000 --> 28:15.000]  And nowhere in there is the 1040 mentioned.
[28:15.000 --> 28:21.000]  Then we get to the next level, which is the regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Treasury,
[28:21.000 --> 28:26.000]  which, by the way, the courts have said the regulations are controlling, not the statutes.
[28:26.000 --> 28:31.000]  So regulations are very, very meaningful.
[28:31.000 --> 28:35.000]  And there are probably as many income tax statutes as there are,
[28:35.000 --> 28:41.000]  there's probably 12 to 20 times as many regulations.
[28:41.000 --> 28:45.000]  So, for instance, a statute can be three paragraphs long.
[28:45.000 --> 28:51.000]  The Secretary's regulation to explain and implement that may be eight pages long.
[28:51.000 --> 28:57.000]  That gives you some idea of the difference between the brevity of the statute and the full language of a regulation.
[28:57.000 --> 29:02.000]  There are literally hundreds of thousands of pages of income tax regulations.
[29:02.000 --> 29:08.000]  And also in the regulations, you will not find Form 1040 mentioned anywhere.
[29:08.000 --> 29:13.000]  I think people would find that odd since everybody's told to file Form 1040.
[29:13.000 --> 29:17.000]  So where is the authority for the 1040?
[29:17.000 --> 29:22.000]  Well, the 1040 is talked about in something called Treasury decisions.
[29:22.000 --> 29:26.000]  And Treasury decisions are the next point down.
[29:26.000 --> 29:28.000]  We have statutes from Congress.
[29:28.000 --> 29:30.000]  We have the regulations by the Secretary.
[29:30.000 --> 29:35.000]  And underneath the regulations of the Secretary, we have Treasury decisions.
[29:35.000 --> 29:39.000]  Treasury decisions are also very meaningful for a couple of reasons.
[29:39.000 --> 29:42.000]  Oftentimes, they actually become regulations.
[29:42.000 --> 29:46.000]  The language of a Treasury decision becomes a regulation.
[29:46.000 --> 29:59.000]  The Treasury decision is an official binding determination by the Secretary of the Treasury on some question or other concerning the implementation,
[29:59.000 --> 30:01.000]  the administration of a particular tax.
[30:01.000 --> 30:04.000]  In this case today, we're talking about income tax.
[30:04.000 --> 30:13.000]  So these Treasury decisions, by the way, I should say every single employee of the Treasury Department and the IRS is bound.
[30:13.000 --> 30:18.000]  They must obey Treasury decisions or they will lose their job.
[30:18.000 --> 30:22.000]  So you can see how powerful and important Treasury decisions are.
[30:22.000 --> 30:26.000]  So that's where we find the 10 that's Form 1040.
[30:26.000 --> 30:30.000]  So I think a lot of people would question why it's three levels down.
[30:30.000 --> 30:32.000]  And I understand that question.
[30:32.000 --> 30:36.000]  And the question is the question is answered by what I'm about to tell you.
[30:36.000 --> 30:38.000]  They don't want the public to know this.
[30:38.000 --> 30:42.000]  Most people don't even know they're they know there's tax laws.
[30:42.000 --> 30:44.000]  They know there are tax regulations.
[30:44.000 --> 30:47.000]  But I'm going to guess 99 percent of Americans have never heard of Treasury decisions.
[30:47.000 --> 30:53.000]  So that's where the 1040 discussion takes place outside the view of the American public.
[30:53.000 --> 31:02.000]  And there are nine Treasury decisions that talk about who is to file a Form 1040.
[31:02.000 --> 31:19.000]  And in all nine Treasury decisions, the Secretary of the Treasury has stated his official binding determination that Form 1040 is to be used by a nonresident alien with U.S.
[31:19.000 --> 31:29.000]  source income or the domestic agent representing the nonresident alien with U.S.
[31:29.000 --> 31:30.000]  source income.
[31:30.000 --> 31:37.000]  So that's nine Treasury decisions that say and of course that dovetails with one of the three classes.
[31:37.000 --> 31:38.000]  Correct.
[31:38.000 --> 31:42.000]  It's the nonresident alien with U.S. source income.
[31:42.000 --> 31:50.000]  So those nine Treasury decisions dovetail with and support that class.
[31:50.000 --> 31:59.000]  Now, people are given us the false society narrative concerning income tax.
[31:59.000 --> 32:11.000]  It's understandable that people would say, OK, Dave, you've told us about the nine Treasury decisions that say a nonresident alien is to file the Form 1040.
[32:11.000 --> 32:12.000]  Now, tell us the rest, Dave.
[32:12.000 --> 32:16.000]  Tell us the part you're withholding.
[32:16.000 --> 32:28.000]  Tell us the part about the Treasury decisions that say an American citizen living and working in one of the 50 states earning his or her own domestic source income is required to file a 1040.
[32:28.000 --> 32:32.000]  Tell us about those Treasury decisions, Dave.
[32:32.000 --> 32:35.000]  I would.
[32:35.000 --> 32:52.000]  And I think it's important to also understand that Treasury decisions have been written by the Secretary of the Treasury since before the turn of the 20th century.
[32:52.000 --> 32:58.000]  My point being that the Secretary of the Treasury knows very well how to write Treasury decisions.
[32:58.000 --> 33:26.000]  And of course, to not write Treasury decisions, if the law imposed the income tax, Laurie Ann, on you or me, and to not write a Treasury decision saying that we were required to file a 1040 would and any other conflict like that where you're not he's not writing a Treasury decision to cover the people that are alleged by law to have an obligation.
[33:26.000 --> 33:29.000]  That would create a horrible conflict and chaos.
[33:29.000 --> 33:37.000]  And the Secretary knows in his whatever it's been 130 140 years since he started producing Treasury decisions.
[33:37.000 --> 33:39.000]  He knows damn well how to write Treasury decisions.
[33:39.000 --> 33:45.000]  And he knows the consequence of not addressing all of the necessary issues for compliance.
[33:45.000 --> 33:49.000]  Compliance is a big word with the IRS tax compliance.
[33:50.000 --> 34:06.000]  So a way to a way to make sure that the public is as compliant with tax law as possible is to make sure that through the statutes through the regs and through the Treasury decisions, every of the obligations are crystal clear.
[34:06.000 --> 34:16.000]  But yet nowhere in law, not in the statutes, not in the regs, not in the Treasury decisions, nowhere in what's it been?
[34:16.000 --> 34:19.000]  Well, the income tax law was passed in 1930.
[34:19.000 --> 34:32.000]  From that date till this date, the Secretary of the Treasury has never once said that you or I are to file 10 form 1040 or anything, frankly, to be clear, anything at the end of the year.
[34:32.000 --> 34:41.000]  And I should probably tell your audience that I haven't filed income tax return or paid a penny of income tax since 1993 for the exact reasons that we're talking about today.
[34:41.000 --> 34:55.000]  And I should add while we're talking about 1040, because remember the the second class was foreign corporations with US source income and foreign corporation would be a business, not an individual.
[34:55.000 --> 35:03.000]  Right. And just like the 1040, just like the 1040 is for non-resident aliens.
[35:03.000 --> 35:12.000]  Should we have your audience guess what the form 1120 is that most of them believe is is the tax return their business is supposed to file at the end of the year?
[35:12.000 --> 35:20.000]  Same thing as the 1040 is only for non-resident aliens with US source income or their domestic representative.
[35:20.000 --> 35:27.000]  The 1120 is only for foreign corporations with US source income or their US representatives.
[35:27.000 --> 35:35.000]  There is no other there is no other specificity in law concerning the 1120 than that.
[35:35.000 --> 35:40.000]  There is nothing that says I'm going to just throw out an arbitrary state here.
[35:40.000 --> 35:54.000]  A corporation of a citizen of the state of Indiana with an Indiana corporation doing ordinary domestic business that maybe is cleaning carpets or he's fixing copier machines or what have you.
[35:54.000 --> 36:01.000]  There's absolutely nothing in the law that says that company is supposed to fill out form 1120 at the end of the year.
[36:01.000 --> 36:07.000]  That's just as erroneous as that an American citizen is supposed to fill out a 1040 at the end of the year.
[36:07.000 --> 36:09.000]  Just as erroneous.
[36:09.000 --> 36:18.000]  The problem comes when a person will look at the 1120 for a moment for illustrator purposes.
[36:18.000 --> 36:28.000]  All year long, the company hands out W9s to people who are paying the company for its services because the people making the payments like, oh, I need a W9 from you.
[36:28.000 --> 36:30.000]  OK, so they fill out a W9.
[36:30.000 --> 36:31.000]  They fill out one.
[36:31.000 --> 36:32.000]  They fill out two.
[36:32.000 --> 36:33.000]  They fill out 30.
[36:33.000 --> 36:34.000]  They fill out 100.
[36:34.000 --> 36:38.000]  And they pass them out all year long to the people who are demanding.
[36:38.000 --> 36:44.000]  And as we discussed, signing the W9 is, oh, I'm the guy.
[36:44.000 --> 36:46.000]  The tax has been imposed on me.
[36:46.000 --> 36:50.000]  I figured that out all by myself, despite the fact I've never read a word of tax law.
[36:50.000 --> 36:53.000]  I know I'm the guy.
[36:53.000 --> 36:56.000]  So they fill out these W9s all year long.
[36:56.000 --> 36:59.000]  And then it is completely understandable.
[36:59.000 --> 37:00.000]  This is the part.
[37:00.000 --> 37:03.000]  This is where the IRS is not the problem.
[37:03.000 --> 37:11.000]  It is completely understandable come April 15th when the IRS says to that business, hey, man, where's your 1120?
[37:11.000 --> 37:17.000]  Now, I'm going to blow the minds of a lot of people who own their own businesses.
[37:17.000 --> 37:20.000]  They've handed out a ton of W9s over the years.
[37:20.000 --> 37:23.000]  A W9 is classified in law.
[37:23.000 --> 37:28.000]  By the way, everything we're talking about and much, much, much, much, much more.
[37:28.000 --> 37:36.000]  A mountain of absolutely conclusive evidence is an income tax shattering the mist and laid out in a way that everybody can understand.
[37:36.000 --> 37:39.000]  So I want to start with that.
[37:39.000 --> 37:50.000]  Form W9 is classified in law as a withholding certificate.
[37:50.000 --> 37:54.000]  Now, I'm sure a lot of people are scratching their head if they own their own business.
[37:54.000 --> 37:56.000]  They're like, wait a second.
[37:56.000 --> 38:01.000]  There's no withholding when I do business with another company.
[38:01.000 --> 38:04.000]  Why is it a withholding certificate?
[38:04.000 --> 38:07.000]  Okay.
[38:07.000 --> 38:16.000]  So it's a withholding certificate because it is to be used in the context of a withholding agent.
[38:16.000 --> 38:23.000]  And you give the withholding certificate to a withholding agent.
[38:23.000 --> 38:24.000]  That should make sense.
[38:24.000 --> 38:28.000]  I don't think here in this interview I need to support that in law.
[38:28.000 --> 38:31.000]  You'll find that in income tax shattering the mist.
[38:31.000 --> 38:50.000]  So a withholding agent is a person who withholds U.S. income tax, that U.S. source income, belonging to a nonresident alien or foreign corporation.
[38:50.000 --> 39:03.000]  The withholding agent is responsible for withholding the tax before the money goes offshore to the nonresident alien or to the foreign corporation.
[39:03.000 --> 39:17.000]  I haven't read any law that I'm not planning to do a lot of that, but I would like to review the standard for withholding the tax.
[39:17.000 --> 39:42.000]  The person who is to withhold the tax is the one who, and I'm quoting from the law here, having control, receipt, custody, disposal, or payment of any of the items of income specified in subsection B to the extent that any such items constitute gross income from sources within the United States of any nonresident individual or any foreign partnership.
[39:42.000 --> 39:48.000]  Shall deduct and withhold from such items a tax, yada, yada, yada, yada.
[39:48.000 --> 39:54.000]  That is the withholding agent described in law.
[39:54.000 --> 39:55.000]  All right.
[39:55.000 --> 39:58.000]  So we've got this withholding agent.
[39:58.000 --> 40:04.000]  Now, most people just, they don't understand the person who's paying them.
[40:04.000 --> 40:16.000]  When they demand a W-9, what they're saying is, you, the guy we're paying, we want you to sign under penalty of perjury.
[40:16.000 --> 40:18.000]  That, you know, this is good.
[40:18.000 --> 40:20.000]  Again, I'm not going to get into all the law.
[40:20.000 --> 40:23.000]  We'd be here too long, but it's all an income tax shattering the mist.
[40:23.000 --> 40:25.000]  I want you to sign a W-9.
[40:25.000 --> 40:40.000]  And in doing so, I want you to declare that you are a U.S. citizen or U.S. resident or U.S. business that is involved in the flow of U.S.
[40:40.000 --> 40:47.000]  source income from my company to a nonresident alien or foreign corporation.
[40:47.000 --> 40:49.000]  You're the middleman.
[40:49.000 --> 40:51.000]  That's what a W-9 means.
[40:51.000 --> 40:52.000]  Makes sense.
[40:52.000 --> 41:06.000]  So if a guy's fixing copier machines and the customer for whom he fixed the copiers says, give me a W-9, when the copy machine guy gives the W-9 in,
[41:06.000 --> 41:17.000]  he's testifying under penalty of perjury in law that he is an American citizen or resident or business that is acting as an intermediary
[41:17.000 --> 41:26.000]  as the money flows from its source, the guy who's writing the check, to its foreign owner, the nonresident alien or foreign corporation.
[41:26.000 --> 41:31.000]  Now, people who are in business for themselves right now who are listening to this have been at this a long time.
[41:31.000 --> 41:33.000]  And I know the reaction.
[41:33.000 --> 41:35.000]  That's nonsense.
[41:35.000 --> 41:37.000]  That is not what a W-9 means.
[41:37.000 --> 41:41.000]  I hear this a lot from accountants as well until they read the law.
[41:41.000 --> 41:46.000]  I think they're so focused on the regulations that they never actually read the law itself.
[41:46.000 --> 41:50.000]  Everyone who says, oh, I just heard what Champion said on Laurie Ann.
[41:50.000 --> 41:52.000]  So that's such nonsense.
[41:52.000 --> 41:53.000]  That's not what the W-9 is.
[41:53.000 --> 41:55.000]  That's not what the W-9 signifies.
[41:55.000 --> 41:57.000]  And then they read the law for themselves.
[41:57.000 --> 42:03.000]  And then they say, oh, shit, he was right.
[42:03.000 --> 42:05.000]  Now, here's an interesting thing.
[42:05.000 --> 42:08.000]  We talked about withholding agent a moment ago.
[42:09.000 --> 42:19.000]  The plain English way I describe a withholding agent is it's the last domestic guy with it before it goes offshore.
[42:19.000 --> 42:20.000]  Does that make sense?
[42:20.000 --> 42:21.000]  Exactly.
[42:21.000 --> 42:22.000]  Yeah.
[42:22.000 --> 42:29.000]  They have to withhold it before it goes offshore because once it goes offshore, then they can't control it.
[42:29.000 --> 42:32.000]  They go after somebody in another country.
[42:32.000 --> 42:42.000]  And in more complex financial transactions, there can be several domestic intermediaries before it goes offshore.
[42:42.000 --> 42:46.000]  That's why I say it's the last domestic guy with it.
[42:46.000 --> 42:56.000]  That's the guy who's required under U.S. tax law to deduct and withhold the income tax of the nonresident alien or foreign corporation.
[42:56.000 --> 43:08.000]  When the withholding agent withholds that, the very act of withholding creates a legal obligation under tax law for him to pay that over to the United States government as a withholding agent.
[43:08.000 --> 43:21.000]  If the money he withheld is from a nonresident alien and the nonresident alien has no intention of filing a tax return, then the withholding agent has to file a 1040.
[43:21.000 --> 43:25.000]  Today they've changed the numbers around a little bit from when the Treasury decisions were written.
[43:25.000 --> 43:29.000]  Today that would be a 1041 or 1042, but it's still the same thing.
[43:29.000 --> 43:43.000]  By the way, any return that's 1040, 1041, 1042, they're all about U.S. source income belonging to a foreign person.
[43:43.000 --> 43:58.000]  If the withholding agent is withholding caps that belong to a foreign corporation and the foreign corporation has no intention of filing a tax return, then the domestic withholding agent will file a form 1120.
[43:58.000 --> 44:02.000]  I hope I'm bringing this all together in a way that people can understand.
[44:02.000 --> 44:11.000]  I know it like the back of my hand, but I know for most of your listeners this is probably a case of first impression, so I hope I'm describing it clearly.
[44:11.000 --> 44:13.000]  I believe that you are.
[44:13.000 --> 44:14.000]  It makes perfect sense.
[44:14.000 --> 44:15.000]  OK.
[44:15.000 --> 44:28.000]  One of the things that we might go over again, I said I don't want to read a lot of law, but one of the things that we might go over is the definition of employee for the purpose of payroll withholding.
[44:28.000 --> 44:39.000]  They say for the purpose of payroll withholding, income tax law has, to the best of my recollection, seven different definitions of employee at different parts of the code.
[44:39.000 --> 44:55.000]  And so I want to focus on just the definition within that block of law pertaining to payroll withholding, because I think that's something that a lot of people, the vast majority of people in this country work for somebody else.
[44:55.000 --> 44:58.000]  So I think that's a critical thing to discuss.
[44:58.000 --> 45:00.000]  Yeah, that was the next thing I was going to say.
[45:00.000 --> 45:05.000]  What about like, you know, the W-2 and employees working for, you know, a business and stuff?
[45:05.000 --> 45:13.000]  And that's what I think most of us relate to is that because the vast majority of us are employees of somebody else.
[45:13.000 --> 45:19.000]  The definition of employee, I'm going to just begin it to make a point here.
[45:19.000 --> 45:23.000]  For the purpose of this chapter, the term employee includes.
[45:24.000 --> 45:34.000]  Now, I want to stop right there because includes has a very specific definition in income tax law.
[45:34.000 --> 45:41.000]  And remember, some of these definitions, such as includes, were written into the code back in 1913.
[45:41.000 --> 45:47.000]  So they're structured a little bit more oddly than we would speak English today.
[45:47.000 --> 45:57.000]  So the term includes and including shall not be construed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.
[45:57.000 --> 46:00.000]  By the way, I just said that from memory, which is really pathetic.
[46:00.000 --> 46:08.000]  OK. But probably a lot of your listeners are scratching their head right now and they're saying, what the hell does that even mean?
[46:09.000 --> 46:18.000]  And in another area of tax law, the same exact definition written much more recently essentially says, and I'm paraphrasing here.
[46:18.000 --> 46:26.000]  I don't have it up in front of me. It says shall not exclude things that are within the established class.
[46:26.000 --> 46:30.000]  Does that make more sense? Correct. Yep. OK.
[46:31.000 --> 46:38.000]  Both the complex one written in 1913 and the newer one that was written in the 1970s, they mean the same exact thing.
[46:38.000 --> 46:42.000]  One is old school English. One is more modern phraseology.
[46:42.000 --> 46:50.000]  So what that means when it says you shall not exclude things within the class, how do we know what the class is?
[46:50.000 --> 46:57.000]  Well, by the items listed in the definition. Yes, the items would establish a class.
[46:57.000 --> 47:02.000]  So I want to read to you the definition of employee for the purpose of payroll withholding.
[47:02.000 --> 47:09.000]  And at the end, you can tell me what you believe the class is for the purpose of this chapter.
[47:09.000 --> 47:20.000]  The term employee includes an officer, employee or elected official of the United States, a state or any political subdivision thereof,
[47:20.000 --> 47:29.000]  or the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing.
[47:29.000 --> 47:36.000]  So what's the class established by the items enumerated in the definition?
[47:36.000 --> 47:39.000]  Should I read them again? Yes, please.
[47:39.000 --> 47:46.000]  The term employee includes an officer, employee or elected official of the United States, a state or any political subdivision thereof,
[47:46.000 --> 47:52.000]  or the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing.
[47:52.000 --> 47:58.000]  Would the class not be people who work for various entities of the government?
[47:58.000 --> 48:00.000]  That's what it sounds like. Yes.
[48:00.000 --> 48:04.000]  Yes. I'm going to read it one more time and I want I want your listeners to think in their head.
[48:04.000 --> 48:10.000]  Is there anything in this description that would cause you to believe it means the private sector?
[48:11.000 --> 48:17.000]  The term employee includes an officer, employee or elected official of the United States, a state or any political subdivision thereof,
[48:17.000 --> 48:23.000]  or the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing.
[48:23.000 --> 48:29.000]  I've been sharing this with people for that particular statute for probably going on 25 years.
[48:29.000 --> 48:39.000]  I've never had anybody tell me they could find any language in that statute that would remotely signify it implies it applies to anybody in the private sector.
[48:39.000 --> 48:46.000]  So it's important to note that because they use the word includes, we've discussed what includes mean.
[48:46.000 --> 48:51.000]  Includes has its own definition, which I shared with you, in the tax code.
[48:51.000 --> 48:55.000]  So we don't have to speculate about what includes signifies. We know what it means.
[48:55.000 --> 49:06.000]  And that's if the government has failed to enumerate anything that fits within the class, it can be added.
[49:07.000 --> 49:13.000]  It is covered without being itemized. Does that make sense?
[49:13.000 --> 49:20.000]  Yes. So long as it's set to fit the definition, then it is like it's an umbrella.
[49:20.000 --> 49:23.000]  Yeah, exactly. Great way to phrase it. It's an umbrella.
[49:23.000 --> 49:30.000]  And you can put other things under the umbrella provided they fit in the same class established by the enumerated items.
[49:30.000 --> 49:33.000]  But clearly there's nothing in here about the private sector.
[49:33.000 --> 49:38.000]  It's funny because I did a phone call on behalf of a client many, many, many years ago.
[49:38.000 --> 49:44.000]  And the client had gone to the company owner and said, I want you to stop withholding from me.
[49:44.000 --> 49:50.000]  I didn't know what the law said before. I've now read the law, the entire scope of income tax law.
[49:50.000 --> 49:57.000]  And then I want to narrow it down with you, Mr. Owner, to the fact that you shouldn't be withholding from my pay anymore.
[49:57.000 --> 50:02.000]  And the owner and the employee had a good relationship and a long-term relationship.
[50:02.000 --> 50:08.000]  And so the owner said, you go talk to the payroll again. We've been doing payroll for the company for more than 20 years.
[50:08.000 --> 50:15.000]  So you talk to her. And after you've talked to her, we'll all sit down together and I'll see where this is at.
[50:15.000 --> 50:24.000]  So the employee said, Dave, would you get on the call with me? I'm not sure that I can articulate this correctly and I'd like you to be involved.
[50:24.000 --> 50:29.000]  Okay, great. So I get on the phone and I'm chatting with this lady and she's very nice.
[50:29.000 --> 50:33.000]  So we start out, you know, with the typical social thing. How's the weather? Blah, blah, blah.
[50:33.000 --> 50:41.000]  While we're going through the niceties at the beginning of the call, she says about three times, I have to withhold from Tom, it's the law.
[50:41.000 --> 50:46.000]  And I'm like, oh, well, that's nice. We're continuing. And again, I have to withhold from Tom, it's the law.
[50:46.000 --> 50:52.000]  So that's like the third time she said that. I said, you know, I'm so glad that you keep saying that, that it's the law,
[50:52.000 --> 51:01.000]  because that tells me that you know exactly what the law is in this matter. And that makes this conversation a whole lot more productive.
[51:01.000 --> 51:12.000]  I said, so being that you know the law, can you direct me to the statute or the regulation to which you're referring when you say it's the law?
[51:12.000 --> 51:22.000]  I don't know that. I said, okay, that's okay. That's fine. Not a big deal. We can work around it.
[51:22.000 --> 51:30.000]  Can you share with me the language of the statute or the regulation, what it says? Can you tell me that?
[51:30.000 --> 51:36.000]  Because if you tell me what the language is of the statute, I've been doing this so long, I'll probably know exactly where to go find it.
[51:37.000 --> 51:45.000]  I don't know the language. And I said, okay, not to worry. There's really only one area of law that deals with payroll holding.
[51:45.000 --> 51:51.000]  So are you sitting in front of a computer? Yes, I'm sitting in front of a computer. Great. And here's where I want you to go with me.
[51:51.000 --> 52:00.000]  I want you to do a search for 26 USC, excuse me, section 3401. Can you go there with me online? I've got it up here.
[52:01.000 --> 52:10.000]  Okay. So we go there. I tell her, scroll down to subsection C, employee. I said, let's read this together.
[52:10.000 --> 52:29.000]  And so she read it out loud. And I said, is there any way you can think of if you were to bend, twist, mutilate the language there in any possible way that you could see the private sector being stated there?
[52:29.000 --> 52:36.000]  And she said, I don't want to talk to you about the law anymore. It hurts her brain.
[52:38.000 --> 52:46.000]  I wanted to share that story because this that is not uncommon. And some people become she was distressed, but many people become angry.
[52:46.000 --> 52:53.000]  You know, Tony Robbins is so I was dealing with his people on behalf of a client one time.
[52:53.000 --> 53:02.000]  The people I was talking to were so upset that they just dealt with the W9 issue that they had the company accountant get on the phone with me.
[53:02.000 --> 53:14.000]  That was both two things. He was a certified public accountant and he was a lawyer, just like with the nice lady from the company that we talked about a moment ago.
[53:14.000 --> 53:19.000]  I just went through it with him and I referenced Supreme Court cases.
[53:19.000 --> 53:22.000]  And, you know, he tried to twist the definitions.
[53:22.000 --> 53:26.000]  And I said, well, you can't do that because here's what the Supreme Court said in this case.
[53:26.000 --> 53:29.000]  You've got to adhere to what Congress says. You can't make things up.
[53:29.000 --> 53:32.000]  And I just went through it step by step by step.
[53:32.000 --> 53:36.000]  When I said some people said are becoming distressed, they become angry.
[53:36.000 --> 53:42.000]  He was so infuriated that he couldn't, I guess, from his perspective, win the discussion.
[53:42.000 --> 53:44.000]  There's nothing to win. It's just the law, right?
[53:44.000 --> 53:46.000]  He was so infuriated.
[53:46.000 --> 53:55.000]  The only time I could hear somebody on the phone, I could literally hear the spittle flying out of his mouth.
[53:55.000 --> 53:59.000]  That's how enraged he was yelling at me at the top of his lungs on the phone.
[53:59.000 --> 54:05.000]  So there's a spectrum of reactions that people have that one lady, she was distressed.
[54:05.000 --> 54:10.000]  This attorney in CPA, he was enraged, but it's just the law.
[54:10.000 --> 54:15.000]  It's just the law. I don't understand, for me, I don't understand why it's so emotional.
[54:15.000 --> 54:22.000]  Once you know what the law is, you've read it with your own two eyes, just follow it.
[54:22.000 --> 54:28.000]  Well, when he was so enraged, what was he saying when he was yelling at you?
[54:28.000 --> 54:34.000]  I mean, was he denying what you spelled out for him in the law?
[54:35.000 --> 54:40.000]  What do you think was at the heart of that reaction?
[54:40.000 --> 54:46.000]  He didn't like losing, and he was basically, towards the end of the conversation, he was screaming insults at me.
[54:46.000 --> 54:48.000]  He wasn't screaming the law.
[54:48.000 --> 54:50.000]  Let me give you another example here.
[54:50.000 --> 54:54.000]  Remember I said a moment ago that a W-9 is a withholding certificate?
[54:54.000 --> 54:58.000]  I would just like to read you the regulation that says that.
[54:58.000 --> 55:02.000]  I'm going to give you the citation in case people want to look it up, but that's not the important part.
[55:02.000 --> 55:08.000]  26 CFR 1.1471-1B148.
[55:08.000 --> 55:10.000]  And it reads as follows.
[55:10.000 --> 55:20.000]  The term withholding certificate means a form W-8, form W-9, or any other certificate that under the code blah blah blah blah.
[55:20.000 --> 55:25.000]  Clearly we heard the part of withholding certificate means a form W-9.
[55:25.000 --> 55:33.000]  That regulation was provided to a payroll department in a fairly significant size company.
[55:33.000 --> 55:45.000]  And in a subsequent conversation, their attorney actually told the gal in charge of payroll that the W-9 is not a withholding certificate.
[55:45.000 --> 55:53.000]  That's an absurd thing for the person who was sharing all of this with them.
[55:53.000 --> 55:55.000]  That's an absurd thing for him to say.
[55:55.000 --> 55:58.000]  In the letter that was sent, it was right there.
[55:58.000 --> 56:04.000]  The regulation was right there saying withholding certificate means a form W-9.
[56:04.000 --> 56:07.000]  And he told the person in payroll that's not true.
[56:07.000 --> 56:13.000]  So clearly there's some emotion involved in that because that's not an intellectual thing.
[56:13.000 --> 56:22.000]  When you read the regulation with your own two eyes and then you tell the other person that's not true, and you're an attorney, you're trained to follow the law.
[56:22.000 --> 56:26.000]  And you see the law with your own two eyes and then you tell your client that's not true.
[56:26.000 --> 56:28.000]  It doesn't mean that.
[56:28.000 --> 56:30.000]  So there's a lot of emotionalism.
[56:30.000 --> 56:32.000]  Now, it's not all negative.
[56:32.000 --> 56:36.000]  I just received a message a couple of weeks ago from a gentleman that was thrilled.
[56:36.000 --> 56:45.000]  He sat down with the HR guy and the accountant after reading Incompetent Shattering the Mist and laid out some of the information from him.
[56:45.000 --> 56:50.000]  And he said the accountant was amazed.
[56:50.000 --> 56:54.000]  And he told me the accountant is ordering your book tonight because he wants to know more.
[56:54.000 --> 56:59.000]  I told you the story about the very nice lady and the story about the asshole attorney.
[56:59.000 --> 57:02.000]  But there's positive too.
[57:02.000 --> 57:09.000]  So it just depends on, I guess what I would say is how rational and reasonable are the people who are receiving the material?
[57:09.000 --> 57:12.000]  Are they honest?
[57:12.000 --> 57:13.000]  Are they forthright?
[57:13.000 --> 57:14.000]  Do they have integrity?
[57:14.000 --> 57:17.000]  If they do, they're going to say, let me look into this.
[57:17.000 --> 57:22.000]  And if they're just a bunch of assholes, then you're going to get the thing like from the angry attorney.
[57:22.000 --> 57:33.000]  Yeah, and it's almost like they're trying to, you know, it's like a cling to a denial and then also maybe thwarting their own sense of guilt.
[57:33.000 --> 57:48.000]  Because once they find out what they've understood the law to be and it's false, then comes the guilt from being part of scam to begin with.
[57:48.000 --> 57:59.000]  So it's a denial of their own understanding and a denial of what the truth is along with avoidance of guilt for being a part of the system,
[57:59.000 --> 58:02.000]  being a part of the scam and imposing it on other people.
[58:02.000 --> 58:05.000]  And advising other people incorrectly.
[58:05.000 --> 58:07.000]  I think that's part of the denial there.
[58:07.000 --> 58:10.000]  And then that's what gets that anger going.
[58:10.000 --> 58:16.000]  I'm going to go with you on that because you probably understand the guilt factor of human beings better than I do.
[58:16.000 --> 58:18.000]  I'm not really a guilt guy.
[58:18.000 --> 58:26.000]  So, you know, I try and conduct myself with some level of rectitude for the very purpose that I don't have to experience guilt.
[58:26.000 --> 58:32.000]  It seems kind of like a ridiculous way to live your life, do things that aren't right and then feel guilty about them.
[58:32.000 --> 58:34.000]  So I'm going to go with you on that.
[58:34.000 --> 58:41.000]  I think the other thing in addition to that, for instance, that one attorney screaming and yelling at me at the phone, I think it's ego.
[58:41.000 --> 58:47.000]  They've built themselves up in their own mind to being infallible on certain issues.
[58:47.000 --> 58:50.000]  I'm the expert, you know, kind of like Fauci.
[58:50.000 --> 58:51.000]  Yes.
[58:51.000 --> 58:53.000]  You know, I'm the expert.
[58:53.000 --> 58:57.000]  What I say goes, no matter what the truth really is.
[58:57.000 --> 59:10.000]  Fauci in his recent deposition for a lawsuit by the states of Missouri and I believe Louisiana that's accusing social media platforms of colluding with the federal,
[59:10.000 --> 59:18.000]  I should say the federal government colluding with social media platforms for censorship, which of course is unconstitutional if the government has its hand in there.
[59:18.000 --> 59:23.000]  And during that deposition, Fauci said, I don't remember 147 times.
[59:23.000 --> 59:27.000]  And he said, I do not recall more than 212 times.
[59:27.000 --> 59:32.000]  So if they're caught with their hand in the cookie jar, that's how they respond.
[59:32.000 --> 59:34.000]  I don't recall and I don't remember.
[59:34.000 --> 59:38.000]  Yeah, because they can't plead the fifth because they've already been answering questions.
[59:38.000 --> 59:40.000]  So they can't plead the fifth.
[59:40.000 --> 59:43.000]  So then the next go to is I just don't recall.
[59:43.000 --> 59:45.000]  I don't remember.
[59:45.000 --> 59:46.000]  And of course, they're under oath.
[59:46.000 --> 59:49.000]  So if they lie, that's a felony.
[59:49.000 --> 59:51.000]  And here's my thing about Fauci in that deposition.
[59:51.000 --> 59:57.000]  If he was standing up in front of the news cameras, he'd just lie because it'd be no consequence, as he knows.
[59:57.000 --> 01:00:00.000]  But under oath and a deposition, if he lies, he goes to jail.
[01:00:00.000 --> 01:00:02.000]  That's a felony.
[01:00:02.000 --> 01:00:06.000]  Committing perjury is a felony federally and in all 50 states.
[01:00:06.000 --> 01:00:09.000]  So lying is not a wise thing.
[01:00:09.000 --> 01:00:14.000]  And that's why they do the Potomac Two-Step, which is I don't remember and I don't recall.
[01:00:14.000 --> 01:00:30.000]  You know, Carl Sagan, and I'm paraphrasing here, Carl Sagan said that once people have been bamboozled for long enough, for a long period of time, they become incapable of admitting the bamboozle.
[01:00:30.000 --> 01:00:40.000]  It's too emotionally stressful for them to look at a bamboozle that has seized them for however long, you know, years, decades.
[01:00:40.000 --> 01:00:51.000]  And then when somebody comes along and points it out to them, Carl Sagan pointed out that it's virtually impossible for them to admit that they've been bamboozled.
[01:00:51.000 --> 01:00:52.000]  It's too hard on the ego.
[01:00:52.000 --> 01:00:53.000]  They can't do it.
[01:00:53.000 --> 01:01:00.000]  It would crush them, which I find odd because, you know, I hope this doesn't sound pretentious.
[01:01:00.000 --> 01:01:02.000]  I don't mean it to.
[01:01:02.000 --> 01:01:03.000]  But I'm a truth seeker.
[01:01:03.000 --> 01:01:12.000]  If I believe something that was wrong for two decades and, Laurie Ann, you came along and said, Dave, you're wrong about that and I'm going to put the evidence in front of you.
[01:01:12.000 --> 01:01:21.000]  After I went through the evidence and verified that you were correct, I would say, Laurie Ann, thank you so much for straightening me out on that.
[01:01:21.000 --> 01:01:24.000]  I was running around acting like an asshole and I thought I was right.
[01:01:24.000 --> 01:01:26.000]  I would be grateful.
[01:01:26.000 --> 01:01:28.000]  So it's hard for me to connect to these people.
[01:01:28.000 --> 01:01:31.000]  As you said, they might be having guilt and they've got their ego going on.
[01:01:31.000 --> 01:01:34.000]  And it's just, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, you're wrong.
[01:01:34.000 --> 01:01:41.000]  And as we as we saw with the gal in payroll, she said, I have to, it's the law.
[01:01:41.000 --> 01:01:44.000]  She'd never, ever read the law.
[01:01:44.000 --> 01:01:50.000]  People fill out these W-4s and W-9s and companies demand shit.
[01:01:50.000 --> 01:01:54.000]  And none of them have ever read the law.
[01:01:54.000 --> 01:01:59.000]  And for those in your audience who are thinking right now, this cannot be true.
[01:01:59.000 --> 01:02:01.000]  Attorneys know the law.
[01:02:01.000 --> 01:02:05.000]  If this was true, we'd be hearing it everywhere all the time.
[01:02:05.000 --> 01:02:09.000]  This whole thing wouldn't exist because attorneys know the law.
[01:02:10.000 --> 01:02:11.000]  Okay.
[01:02:11.000 --> 01:02:14.000]  I've been at this now 30 years.
[01:02:14.000 --> 01:02:17.000]  This year is 30 years.
[01:02:17.000 --> 01:02:23.000]  Some of the definitions, and we've just discussed two out of hundreds.
[01:02:23.000 --> 01:02:28.000]  And then there are, aside from definitions, there are actually
[01:02:28.000 --> 01:02:32.000]  statutory regulations that talk about if A, do B and so forth
[01:02:32.000 --> 01:02:34.000]  and who is to do these things and when and so forth.
[01:02:34.000 --> 01:02:44.000]  I have yet to meet any attorney who knows any of the relevant laws.
[01:02:44.000 --> 01:02:46.000]  And I've tested this numerous times.
[01:02:46.000 --> 01:02:49.000]  I'll say, okay, great.
[01:02:49.000 --> 01:02:53.000]  Tell me what it says at 26 CFR 1441.1.
[01:02:53.000 --> 01:02:56.000]  Well, I don't know what it says.
[01:02:56.000 --> 01:02:57.000]  Okay.
[01:02:57.000 --> 01:02:58.000]  Good enough.
[01:02:58.000 --> 01:02:59.000]  I understand.
[01:02:59.000 --> 01:03:00.000]  I appreciate that.
[01:03:00.000 --> 01:03:01.000]  I know it's a challenging field.
[01:03:01.000 --> 01:03:02.000]  Tax law is very complex.
[01:03:02.000 --> 01:03:05.000]  Can you tell me about the definition of withholding agent?
[01:03:05.000 --> 01:03:08.000]  I don't know about that.
[01:03:08.000 --> 01:03:13.000]  And the ironic thing, Laurieann, is the definition of withholding agent
[01:03:13.000 --> 01:03:18.000]  is within 26 CFR 1441.1.
[01:03:18.000 --> 01:03:22.000]  So I'm asking them from both directions, right?
[01:03:22.000 --> 01:03:24.000]  Because obviously withholding agent is pretty much-
[01:03:24.000 --> 01:03:26.000]  Yeah, and they still don't know.
[01:03:26.000 --> 01:03:27.000]  And they don't know.
[01:03:27.000 --> 01:03:30.000]  But they're supposed to be the expert, dang it.
[01:03:30.000 --> 01:03:31.000]  Yes.
[01:03:31.000 --> 01:03:34.000]  And the part I want your audience to take away from this,
[01:03:34.000 --> 01:03:37.000]  I haven't met a single attorney in 30 years who knows these things.
[01:03:37.000 --> 01:03:40.000]  But yet people will say, oh, if Champion was right,
[01:03:40.000 --> 01:03:42.000]  the attorneys would know this.
[01:03:42.000 --> 01:03:43.000]  It would be all over the news.
[01:03:43.000 --> 01:03:44.000]  Yeah.
[01:03:44.000 --> 01:03:45.000]  Okay.
[01:03:45.000 --> 01:03:49.000]  There's a term that's used extensively in U.S. tax law.
[01:03:49.000 --> 01:03:52.000]  And the term is U.S. person.
[01:03:52.000 --> 01:03:55.000]  And remember we talked about context, context, context?
[01:03:55.000 --> 01:03:56.000]  Yeah.
[01:03:56.000 --> 01:03:59.000]  People read law like they would read a novel.
[01:03:59.000 --> 01:04:03.000]  They don't understand that these words, these phrases,
[01:04:03.000 --> 01:04:08.000]  these legal terms have specific meanings in law.
[01:04:08.000 --> 01:04:11.000]  People read it as a U.S. person is to do that,
[01:04:11.000 --> 01:04:13.000]  and a U.S. person is to do the other.
[01:04:13.000 --> 01:04:16.000]  And I know it's a good heart of these good-hearted Americans
[01:04:16.000 --> 01:04:19.000]  if they ever actually read a couple words of tax law.
[01:04:19.000 --> 01:04:21.000]  They say, oh, look, U.S. person, that's me.
[01:04:21.000 --> 01:04:22.000]  I have to do that.
[01:04:22.000 --> 01:04:27.000]  The term U.S. person was introduced into tax law in 1962
[01:04:27.000 --> 01:04:35.000]  to alleviate having to constantly repeat a lengthy phraseology.
[01:04:35.000 --> 01:04:39.000]  And remember earlier we talked about the person who is to withhold
[01:04:39.000 --> 01:04:42.000]  is a person who has control, receipt, custody, disposal,
[01:04:42.000 --> 01:04:45.000]  or payment of any items of income specified in subsection B,
[01:04:45.000 --> 01:04:48.000]  blah, blah, blah, from sources within the United States
[01:04:48.000 --> 01:04:52.000]  of any nonresident alien individual or of any foreign partnership.
[01:04:52.000 --> 01:04:54.000]  And that's the definition of a withholding agent.
[01:04:55.000 --> 01:05:00.000]  A U.S. person is the shorthand for, and I mentioned this earlier,
[01:05:00.000 --> 01:05:03.000]  a U.S. citizen or resident or domestic corporation
[01:05:03.000 --> 01:05:10.000]  that is involved in the flow of U.S. source income to its foreign owner.
[01:05:10.000 --> 01:05:13.000]  So, for instance, a W-9, we talked about this earlier,
[01:05:13.000 --> 01:05:17.000]  it says in the instructions is to be used exclusively by a U.S. person.
[01:05:17.000 --> 01:05:19.000]  So, of course, most everybody raises their hand.
[01:05:19.000 --> 01:05:21.000]  U.S. person, yeah, that's me.
[01:05:21.000 --> 01:05:24.000]  Hell, I'm an American. I'm proud to be a U.S. person.
[01:05:24.000 --> 01:05:26.000]  Here, here's my W-9.
[01:05:26.000 --> 01:05:33.000]  What in fact, a U.S. person is a U.S. citizen or U.S. resident
[01:05:33.000 --> 01:05:38.000]  or domestic corporation that has received U.S. source income
[01:05:38.000 --> 01:05:41.000]  that belongs to a foreign person.
[01:05:41.000 --> 01:05:44.000]  So, a U.S. person basically means you're the middleman
[01:05:44.000 --> 01:05:48.000]  for this foreign person or foreign corporation
[01:05:48.000 --> 01:05:51.000]  that is earning income within the United States
[01:05:51.000 --> 01:05:56.000]  and before it gets outsourced over to whatever foreign country it is, right?
[01:05:56.000 --> 01:05:58.000]  Right, you've got it.
[01:05:58.000 --> 01:06:01.000]  Now, remember earlier I said in more complex transactions,
[01:06:01.000 --> 01:06:04.000]  sometimes there are multiple intermediaries?
[01:06:04.000 --> 01:06:05.000]  Yep.
[01:06:05.000 --> 01:06:10.000]  Okay, so if I'm a U.S. person, this intermediary,
[01:06:10.000 --> 01:06:14.000]  and I give the guy who's paying out the money, I give him a W-9,
[01:06:15.000 --> 01:06:20.000]  so the U.S. source income belonging to a foreign person comes to me.
[01:06:20.000 --> 01:06:24.000]  But I'm not the last guy with it, so I don't have to withhold.
[01:06:24.000 --> 01:06:27.000]  I'm going to send it down the road to the next intermediary.
[01:06:27.000 --> 01:06:32.000]  So I cut a check or I do a transfer to that other intermediary.
[01:06:32.000 --> 01:06:36.000]  So the government doesn't think I'm the last guy with it.
[01:06:36.000 --> 01:06:39.000]  Do you know what the next intermediary has to give me?
[01:06:39.000 --> 01:06:41.000]  A W-9.
[01:06:41.000 --> 01:06:46.000]  Everybody who's an intermediary and is not the last guy with it
[01:06:46.000 --> 01:06:50.000]  has to give the person before them in the chain a W-9.
[01:06:50.000 --> 01:06:52.000]  Now, people who own their own business
[01:06:52.000 --> 01:06:55.000]  and have been handing out W-9s like candy for years,
[01:06:55.000 --> 01:06:57.000]  remember the bamboozle discussion we just had?
[01:06:57.000 --> 01:06:59.000]  They're listening to this right now,
[01:06:59.000 --> 01:07:02.000]  and they're screaming at their computer or their phone.
[01:07:02.000 --> 01:07:05.000]  They're screaming that this guy, Dave Champion,
[01:07:05.000 --> 01:07:09.000]  is absolutely out of his mind and it doesn't mean any of that.
[01:07:09.000 --> 01:07:12.000]  And they're the same people who have never read a word of tax law.
[01:07:12.000 --> 01:07:15.000]  And if they read the text, Settling the Mist, they will find,
[01:07:15.000 --> 01:07:17.000]  if their egos can handle it,
[01:07:17.000 --> 01:07:20.000]  they will find that everything I'm saying is absolutely what the law says.
[01:07:20.000 --> 01:07:22.000]  And I want to encourage people,
[01:07:22.000 --> 01:07:25.000]  no matter where they come down on this discussion tonight between you and I,
[01:07:25.000 --> 01:07:27.000]  that they read the book.
[01:07:27.000 --> 01:07:29.000]  And the reason I say that is if I'm wrong,
[01:07:29.000 --> 01:07:32.000]  then you'll find out you can dismiss everything I've said.
[01:07:32.000 --> 01:07:35.000]  If I'm right, then you can live a whole different life.
[01:07:35.000 --> 01:07:38.000]  If I'm right, you can stop being stolen from.
[01:07:38.000 --> 01:07:42.000]  If I'm right, you can stop being harassed by government agencies.
[01:07:42.000 --> 01:07:47.000]  Wouldn't it be great to find out that everything I'm telling you is the truth?
[01:07:47.000 --> 01:07:49.000]  It will change your life forever.
[01:07:49.000 --> 01:07:51.000]  What you choose to do with that information,
[01:07:51.000 --> 01:07:53.000]  I leave up to the individual American.
[01:07:53.000 --> 01:07:55.000]  But I think everybody,
[01:07:55.000 --> 01:07:58.000]  there's 300 and what, 34 million Americans approximately now,
[01:07:58.000 --> 01:08:02.000]  every one of those over the age of 16 should read Income Tax Settling the Mist.
[01:08:02.000 --> 01:08:05.000]  It should be required reading.
[01:08:05.000 --> 01:08:09.000]  It would shut down the scam within a handful of years.
[01:08:09.000 --> 01:08:10.000]  Exactly.
[01:08:10.000 --> 01:08:13.000]  And in some ways, I think it's like a,
[01:08:13.000 --> 01:08:18.000]  you're either going to allow yourself to have this aha experience
[01:08:18.000 --> 01:08:24.000]  when you actually understand what the truth is.
[01:08:24.000 --> 01:08:28.000]  You'll either have this aha experience or you'll be in denial.
[01:08:28.000 --> 01:08:31.000]  You'll deny yourself that aha experience
[01:08:31.000 --> 01:08:34.000]  because of the ego and stuff that we talked about.
[01:08:34.000 --> 01:08:39.000]  Reading Income Tax Settling the Mist will get people past that ego issue.
[01:08:39.000 --> 01:08:44.000]  The evidence is so voluminous and laid out so clearly and easy to understand,
[01:08:44.000 --> 01:08:46.000]  a little bit shy of 400 pages.
[01:08:46.000 --> 01:08:48.000]  But it's written like a mystery novel.
[01:08:48.000 --> 01:08:52.000]  A lot of people, a lot of readers have referred to it as a page-turner
[01:08:52.000 --> 01:08:53.000]  they couldn't put down.
[01:08:53.000 --> 01:08:54.000]  I know that would sound odd.
[01:08:54.000 --> 01:08:57.000]  Most people think that a book on Income Tax should be dried boring.
[01:08:57.000 --> 01:08:58.000]  It's absolutely not.
[01:08:58.000 --> 01:08:59.000]  It's absolutely compelling.
[01:08:59.000 --> 01:09:02.000]  I know people who've read it four and five and six times
[01:09:02.000 --> 01:09:06.000]  because they loved it so much the way it is laid out like a mystery novel.
[01:09:06.000 --> 01:09:10.000]  We know what's been done, but we don't know exactly how it's been done
[01:09:10.000 --> 01:09:12.000]  or who precisely has done it.
[01:09:12.000 --> 01:09:16.000]  And all of that is revealed over time as we get through the book.
[01:09:16.000 --> 01:09:20.000]  So it's an intriguing, fun, engaging read.
[01:09:20.000 --> 01:09:22.000]  So that kind of gets by the ego thing.
[01:09:22.000 --> 01:09:27.000]  Didn't you not too long ago issue a challenge on one of your videos,
[01:09:27.000 --> 01:09:32.000]  a challenge to anybody to contradict anything that you said?
[01:09:32.000 --> 01:09:35.000]  Did anybody even try?
[01:09:35.000 --> 01:09:37.000]  No, no.
[01:09:37.000 --> 01:09:39.000]  The offer was $50,000.
[01:09:39.000 --> 01:09:42.000]  And just as Income Tax Shattering the Mist came out,
[01:09:42.000 --> 01:09:45.000]  the government did one of its little legal ploys.
[01:09:45.000 --> 01:09:47.000]  It took me to court to get an injunction.
[01:09:47.000 --> 01:09:50.000]  And it says nothing to do with the fact that I don't file and pay.
[01:09:50.000 --> 01:09:51.000]  I want to be very clear.
[01:09:51.000 --> 01:09:54.000]  This was a civil action to get an injunction against me
[01:09:54.000 --> 01:09:58.000]  from helping Americans who know the truth.
[01:09:58.000 --> 01:10:03.000]  The government wanted a federal judge to say,
[01:10:03.000 --> 01:10:07.000]  people may know the truth, but Dave Champion cannot help them live it out.
[01:10:07.000 --> 01:10:10.000]  That's what the injunction was about.
[01:10:10.000 --> 01:10:13.000]  Now, in order to get such an injunction,
[01:10:13.000 --> 01:10:18.000]  the government had to claim that I was telling these clients,
[01:10:18.000 --> 01:10:22.000]  I was giving them information that the government considers
[01:10:22.000 --> 01:10:25.000]  frivolous tax arguments.
[01:10:25.000 --> 01:10:27.000]  I don't even know if I can remember all three of them now.
[01:10:27.000 --> 01:10:31.000]  One was that filing an Income Tax Return is voluntary.
[01:10:31.000 --> 01:10:34.000]  One was that the term wages is not taxable.
[01:10:34.000 --> 01:10:37.000]  When you earn wages, it's not taxable.
[01:10:37.000 --> 01:10:40.000]  And gosh, what was the third one?
[01:10:40.000 --> 01:10:45.000]  Oh, that the term person only means fictitious entities
[01:10:45.000 --> 01:10:47.000]  like corporations or partnerships and so forth.
[01:10:47.000 --> 01:10:51.000]  That's what the government came into court and told the judge I had said.
[01:10:51.000 --> 01:10:55.000]  Now, these were the frivolous arguments that I'd made.
[01:10:55.000 --> 01:10:59.000]  So my attorney asked for an evidentiary hearing
[01:10:59.000 --> 01:11:03.000]  because this was sworn to by an IRS officer,
[01:11:03.000 --> 01:11:05.000]  that Dave Champion said these three things.
[01:11:05.000 --> 01:11:07.000]  And the whole thing was a rigged game.
[01:11:07.000 --> 01:11:09.000]  So my attorney said to the judge,
[01:11:09.000 --> 01:11:11.000]  we'd like to have an evidentiary hearing
[01:11:11.000 --> 01:11:15.000]  because the IRS officer swore to this, under oath,
[01:11:15.000 --> 01:11:20.000]  without stating where or when Mr. Champion allegedly said these things.
[01:11:20.000 --> 01:11:23.000]  In other words, it's what the law calls a naked assertion.
[01:11:23.000 --> 01:11:26.000]  I'm going to say it happened, but I'm not going to prove it happened.
[01:11:26.000 --> 01:11:32.000]  So my attorney asked for an evidentiary hearing, and the judge said no.
[01:11:32.000 --> 01:11:34.000]  Well, evidentiary hearings in a case like that,
[01:11:34.000 --> 01:11:38.000]  that's a new process of law that's mandated in the Constitution.
[01:11:38.000 --> 01:11:42.000]  But the judge said no because the judge knew,
[01:11:42.000 --> 01:11:44.000]  if he granted that evidentiary hearing,
[01:11:45.000 --> 01:11:51.000]  that the IRS officer would not be able to provide any time date or source
[01:11:51.000 --> 01:11:54.000]  that I ever said those things because, of course, I never did.
[01:11:54.000 --> 01:11:57.000]  And then the case would have to be thrown out,
[01:11:57.000 --> 01:12:02.000]  and probably the IRS officer would have to be charged with perjury.
[01:12:02.000 --> 01:12:09.000]  So what I did, since the IRS swore to this, under oath,
[01:12:09.000 --> 01:12:13.000]  and the judge refused to allow it to be challenged,
[01:12:13.000 --> 01:12:16.000]  in my video I said, I will give you $50,000.
[01:12:16.000 --> 01:12:18.000]  If you read Income Tax Shattering the Mist, cover to cover,
[01:12:18.000 --> 01:12:21.000]  you don't have to find where I said all three of those things.
[01:12:21.000 --> 01:12:27.000]  If you find just where I said just one of those things, I'll give you $50,000.
[01:12:27.000 --> 01:12:29.000]  And then because everything I've ever said about income tax
[01:12:29.000 --> 01:12:34.000]  was put together in this compendium called Income Tax Shattering the Mist.
[01:12:34.000 --> 01:12:40.000]  Everything that I know about income tax, well, probably 98% of what I know is in there.
[01:12:40.000 --> 01:12:44.000]  As I said, obviously, I think filing a tax return was voluntary.
[01:12:44.000 --> 01:12:47.000]  That would have featured prominently in my book, right,
[01:12:47.000 --> 01:12:51.000]  if person didn't include what the law calls a natural person's flesh and blood,
[01:12:51.000 --> 01:12:54.000]  but only meant fictions like corporations and partners.
[01:12:54.000 --> 01:12:58.000]  Obviously, that would have been another thing that I would have stated quite plainly.
[01:12:58.000 --> 01:13:03.000]  And wages thing, if wages as defined in the tax code weren't taxable,
[01:13:03.000 --> 01:13:07.000]  that's a whole other discussion very similar to employee,
[01:13:07.000 --> 01:13:11.000]  another thing where Congress has redefined the word to mean something
[01:13:11.000 --> 01:13:13.000]  other than Americans believe it means.
[01:13:13.000 --> 01:13:16.000]  I said, if you can find a place where I said that, I'll give you $50,000.
[01:13:16.000 --> 01:13:18.000]  Again, you don't have to find three.
[01:13:18.000 --> 01:13:22.000]  You just have to find one because I've never said any of them.
[01:13:22.000 --> 01:13:26.000]  So go to the seminal work on the income tax written by me.
[01:13:26.000 --> 01:13:28.000]  Go there. Read it cover to cover.
[01:13:28.000 --> 01:13:32.000]  If you find that I've said any of those things, I'll give you $50,000.
[01:13:32.000 --> 01:13:36.000]  Obviously, I never heard back because I never said those things.
[01:13:36.000 --> 01:13:39.000]  And as I said, the government went into court because I had just published
[01:13:39.000 --> 01:13:43.000]  Income Tax Shattering the Mist, and it was like a whole PR thing.
[01:13:43.000 --> 01:13:46.000]  They were trying to discredit me so that people wouldn't buy
[01:13:46.000 --> 01:13:49.000]  Income Tax Shattering the Mist or read Income Tax Shattering the Mist.
[01:13:49.000 --> 01:13:53.000]  They were trying to take credibility away from the truth.
[01:13:53.000 --> 01:13:57.000]  That's the government for you. Take credibility away from the truth.
[01:13:57.000 --> 01:14:02.000]  And how many times have they done that? That's what they always try to do, right?
[01:14:02.000 --> 01:14:06.000]  Yeah, so many topics. But on the income tax, I frequently say that the reason
[01:14:06.000 --> 01:14:11.000]  that Americans have a completely inaccurate view of what the income tax is
[01:14:11.000 --> 01:14:16.000]  and to whom it applies and who owes income tax and who should have their pay
[01:14:16.000 --> 01:14:20.000]  withheld from and have to file WNOI, the whole thing is a mess.
[01:14:20.000 --> 01:14:27.000]  It is because the government has done a full court press of massive disinformation
[01:14:27.000 --> 01:14:34.000]  for 60 years. Beyond just the act of doing that, we have to examine the motive.
[01:14:34.000 --> 01:14:39.000]  What's the motive of 60-plus years of a massive disinformation campaign?
[01:14:39.000 --> 01:14:45.000]  The motive is to cause the American people to not understand the truth of the income tax
[01:14:45.000 --> 01:14:50.000]  so that the government can make them the victims of the largest financial crime
[01:14:50.000 --> 01:14:54.000]  committed in the world in all of history.
[01:14:55.000 --> 01:14:58.000]  The US income tax is the largest financial crime ever committed.
[01:14:58.000 --> 01:15:02.000]  It's being committed by the United States government against Americans.
[01:15:02.000 --> 01:15:08.000]  The fact that there's any American that says, I don't want to know what's in your book,
[01:15:08.000 --> 01:15:16.000]  is appalling. I don't use the word patriotic a lot because it's got a lot of different meanings
[01:15:16.000 --> 01:15:21.000]  to different people. It carries a lot of baggage. So I use that word a lot.
[01:15:21.000 --> 01:15:27.000]  I will say this. In my view of what patriotism is, which part of that is obedience to the Constitution
[01:15:27.000 --> 01:15:31.000]  standing up and showing you have some balls and some integrity as an American,
[01:15:31.000 --> 01:15:34.000]  if somebody says, I don't want to know what's in your book,
[01:15:34.000 --> 01:15:38.000]  that's about the most unpatriotic thing I can imagine somebody saying.
[01:15:38.000 --> 01:15:42.000]  What they're really saying is, if the government is committing the largest financial crime
[01:15:42.000 --> 01:15:46.000]  in the history of the world against the American people, I'm okay with that. I don't want to know.
[01:15:46.000 --> 01:15:50.000]  That's part of the argument. If what Dave Champion was saying was true, it would be all over the news.
[01:15:50.000 --> 01:15:58.000]  There's been several studies out of Germany recently about what's being found in post-mortem examinations
[01:15:58.000 --> 01:16:02.000]  of people who died after being vaccinated. It's disturbing, to say the least.
[01:16:02.000 --> 01:16:08.000]  The reason that the mRNA vaccines have never been used in the past,
[01:16:08.000 --> 01:16:14.000]  is that science has not yet been able to define or identify something called a mechanism of action.
[01:16:14.000 --> 01:16:20.000]  So if a person gets vaccinated and eight weeks later, the 22-year-old athlete drops dead,
[01:16:20.000 --> 01:16:25.000]  walking down the street of a heart attack, as things stand today, there is no mechanism of action
[01:16:25.000 --> 01:16:31.000]  that connects that person to the person who died after being vaccinated.
[01:16:32.000 --> 01:16:36.000]  That hasn't been found, that hasn't been established, that hasn't been proven.
[01:16:36.000 --> 01:16:40.000]  That's why the mRNA vaccines are still on the market.
[01:16:40.000 --> 01:16:46.000]  There are two studies that have come out, one about four months ago, and another one just days ago out of Germany.
[01:16:46.000 --> 01:16:52.000]  They have not identified the mechanism of action, but they are making amazing progress in that direction.
[01:16:52.000 --> 01:16:55.000]  And that's why they're still on the market.
[01:16:56.000 --> 01:17:01.000]  They have not identified the mechanism of action, but they are making amazing progress in that direction.
[01:17:01.000 --> 01:17:04.000]  Now, will they ever identify a mechanism of action? I don't know.
[01:17:04.000 --> 01:17:09.000]  But they're on the path, they're on the right path, they're peeling back the white layers.
[01:17:09.000 --> 01:17:12.000]  I haven't seen either of those studies in the US media.
[01:17:12.000 --> 01:17:13.000]  Exactly.
[01:17:13.000 --> 01:17:14.000]  How could that be?
[01:17:14.000 --> 01:17:21.000]  And then we have to also consider how governments, not just our government, but other governments,
[01:17:21.000 --> 01:17:29.000]  are trying to thwart the research into establishing that.
[01:17:29.000 --> 01:17:36.000]  So there is a deliberate attack on anybody that actually wants to get to the bottom of it.
[01:17:36.000 --> 01:17:38.000]  Social media is a big part of that.
[01:17:38.000 --> 01:17:43.000]  When that first German study came out four months ago, I made a video about that,
[01:17:43.000 --> 01:17:47.000]  where I detailed what had been uncovered in this study.
[01:17:47.000 --> 01:17:52.000]  These are professional medical examiners in science labs.
[01:17:52.000 --> 01:18:00.000]  They are taking steps post-mortem to show what they're finding in the bodies of people who've died unexpectedly
[01:18:00.000 --> 01:18:02.000]  after receiving the vaccine.
[01:18:02.000 --> 01:18:08.000]  And in the case of the first study, it was limited to people who died within 28 days.
[01:18:08.000 --> 01:18:16.000]  Again, the results, the conclusions of the study were highly disturbing and revealing things everybody should know.
[01:18:16.000 --> 01:18:21.000]  So I created a video, put it on Rumble, and I went through the study.
[01:18:21.000 --> 01:18:23.000]  I didn't share my own opinions.
[01:18:23.000 --> 01:18:27.000]  I went through and I said, here's what the study abstract says.
[01:18:27.000 --> 01:18:29.000]  I broke the abstract down because it was scientific language.
[01:18:29.000 --> 01:18:32.000]  I broke it down into plain English so people could understand.
[01:18:32.000 --> 01:18:40.000]  And I talked about some of the actual pieces of evidence that had been found in this study,
[01:18:40.000 --> 01:18:42.000]  put it up on Rumble, which is no problem.
[01:18:42.000 --> 01:18:44.000]  That's a free speech platform.
[01:18:44.000 --> 01:18:49.000]  I posted it on Facebook and immediately got a 30-day suspension, even though it was science.
[01:18:49.000 --> 01:18:56.000]  I was literally saying, I would like to share with you what has been found in the most recent study
[01:18:56.000 --> 01:19:03.000]  looking at people who died unexpectedly within 28 days of getting the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine.
[01:19:03.000 --> 01:19:05.000]  I would like to share with you what this study said.
[01:19:05.000 --> 01:19:06.000]  Nothing more.
[01:19:06.000 --> 01:19:08.000]  And then I did proceed to share it.
[01:19:08.000 --> 01:19:10.000]  That's science.
[01:19:10.000 --> 01:19:17.000]  Facebook removed it and gave me a 30-day suspension for discussing science that I guess,
[01:19:17.000 --> 01:19:23.000]  in the minds of the censors at Facebook, it didn't matter that it was science.
[01:19:23.000 --> 01:19:31.000]  It only mattered that the truth might cause people to question whether they wanted to get an mRNA vaccine
[01:19:31.000 --> 01:19:34.000]  or whether they wanted to get a booster or what have you.
[01:19:34.000 --> 01:19:38.000]  And of course, the companies like Pfizer and Moderna,
[01:19:38.000 --> 01:19:43.000]  they have a lot more mRNA products they intend to turn out.
[01:19:43.000 --> 01:19:48.000]  So it could also be that we won't allow any science to appear on Facebook
[01:19:48.000 --> 01:19:52.000]  that would cause people to distrust mRNA products in general,
[01:19:52.000 --> 01:19:55.000]  because I think it's human nature if somebody understands,
[01:19:55.000 --> 01:20:01.000]  if somebody sees the results of these postmortem examinations and has grave concerns,
[01:20:01.000 --> 01:20:07.000]  they might not want to become injected with an mRNA product next year, five years from now,
[01:20:07.000 --> 01:20:13.000]  ten years from now, because they saw the science of what happened four months ago,
[01:20:13.000 --> 01:20:15.000]  as you and I are talking today.
[01:20:15.000 --> 01:20:20.000]  Not only is the dominant media involved, but social media, the management,
[01:20:20.000 --> 01:20:23.000]  and Twitter was a big player in that up until Musk bought it.
[01:20:23.000 --> 01:20:26.000]  And YouTube is the same.
[01:20:26.000 --> 01:20:33.000]  YouTube literally has taken down videos of presenters that have millions of followers
[01:20:33.000 --> 01:20:37.000]  and are medical authorities in their own right,
[01:20:37.000 --> 01:20:42.000]  but because they told the truth that conflicted with what the government says,
[01:20:42.000 --> 01:20:45.000]  because we know the government is honest and credible, right?
[01:20:45.000 --> 01:20:49.000]  Or in your case, completely de-platforms you.
[01:20:49.000 --> 01:20:54.000]  Yes, yes. My channel went away, and I think my channel went away.
[01:20:54.000 --> 01:20:57.000]  YouTube always gives you these nonsense explanations,
[01:20:57.000 --> 01:21:02.000]  but I believe the real reason was I put out a couple of videos,
[01:21:02.000 --> 01:21:05.000]  and I'll do this as quickly as I can.
[01:21:05.000 --> 01:21:11.000]  When the body is battling a pathogen, whether it's bacteria or a virus,
[01:21:11.000 --> 01:21:16.000]  that data is eventually stored in something called memory T cells.
[01:21:16.000 --> 01:21:20.000]  This is not to be confused with effector T cells or killer T cells.
[01:21:21.000 --> 01:21:25.000]  This is something called a memory T cell.
[01:21:25.000 --> 01:21:33.000]  And what happens is the B cells uptake whatever the pathogen is.
[01:21:33.000 --> 01:21:36.000]  We'll use a virus in this example.
[01:21:36.000 --> 01:21:41.000]  The B cells uptake the virus, and the virus, depending on how you look at the anatomy,
[01:21:41.000 --> 01:21:47.000]  it's got about roughly 19 anatomical points that the B cells catalog
[01:21:47.000 --> 01:21:52.000]  so that they can identify, so that the body can identify this pathogen again
[01:21:52.000 --> 01:21:55.000]  if it's ever exposed to that pathogen again.
[01:21:55.000 --> 01:22:01.000]  The memory B cells, they then pass this information along,
[01:22:01.000 --> 01:22:04.000]  and I'm not going to get into the whole chemical processes involved in that.
[01:22:04.000 --> 01:22:09.000]  What I call it is a pathogen profile. That's the name I created for this.
[01:22:09.000 --> 01:22:14.000]  They pass off the pathogen profile to the CD4 T cells,
[01:22:14.000 --> 01:22:18.000]  and when the CD4 T cells receive that pathogen profile,
[01:22:18.000 --> 01:22:22.000]  it signals them to differentiate it to memory T cells.
[01:22:22.000 --> 01:22:25.000]  Did that all make sense as far as I've gone with this?
[01:22:25.000 --> 01:22:27.000]  Yep, absolutely. Yep.
[01:22:27.000 --> 01:22:33.000]  But you'll notice in this scenario that's been going on for millions and millions and millions of years,
[01:22:33.000 --> 01:22:37.000]  the B cells take up the whole body of the pathogen.
[01:22:37.000 --> 01:22:40.000]  They take up the virus, or they take up the bacteria.
[01:22:40.000 --> 01:22:44.000]  They break it down anatomically and categorize it, creating the pathogen profile,
[01:22:44.000 --> 01:22:46.000]  and pass that off to the CD4 T cells.
[01:22:46.000 --> 01:22:52.000]  Now, when you're vaccinated, there is no whole anatomy of the virus.
[01:22:52.000 --> 01:22:55.000]  There's only the S spike protein, right?
[01:22:55.000 --> 01:23:03.000]  There is absolutely no reason to believe that the B cells would uptake a fragment of the virus,
[01:23:03.000 --> 01:23:06.000]  known as the spike, which would be like,
[01:23:06.000 --> 01:23:12.000]  if we say there are 19 anatomical features to a virus,
[01:23:12.000 --> 01:23:16.000]  then the spike is 119 of the anatomy.
[01:23:16.000 --> 01:23:22.000]  There is nothing in the millions and millions and millions of years of the human body doing this
[01:23:22.000 --> 01:23:26.000]  that would in any way indicate that it would uptake a fragment,
[01:23:26.000 --> 01:23:32.000]  especially since virus fragments usually mean the virus has already been defeated
[01:23:32.000 --> 01:23:36.000]  and the fragments are floating around in the blood,
[01:23:36.000 --> 01:23:39.000]  waiting for the macrophage feature of the body to remove them and expel them.
[01:23:39.000 --> 01:23:41.000]  Yeah, exactly.
[01:23:41.000 --> 01:23:44.000]  Your body sees that spike protein as something that,
[01:23:44.000 --> 01:23:52.000]  oh, okay, there was a virus, but the body's already chewed it up, so it's kind of irrelevant.
[01:23:52.000 --> 01:24:02.000]  And you can't make an entire profile based off of one-nineteenth of information.
[01:24:02.000 --> 01:24:04.000]  There you go.
[01:24:04.000 --> 01:24:10.000]  Now, what that means is the B cells do not create a pathogen profile.
[01:24:10.000 --> 01:24:17.000]  They cannot pass off what does not exist to the CD4 T cells to differentiate the memory T cells.
[01:24:18.000 --> 01:24:23.000]  Hence, there are no memory T cells created by vaccination.
[01:24:23.000 --> 01:24:28.000]  That explains why you need to constantly get these boosters and why they wane.
[01:24:28.000 --> 01:24:35.000]  And you were deplatformed for saying this very thing well over a year ago,
[01:24:35.000 --> 01:24:39.000]  and anybody else that was trying to say the same thing,
[01:24:39.000 --> 01:24:46.000]  and now information is coming out showing more and more that what you said is true.
[01:24:46.000 --> 01:24:47.000]  Yes.
[01:24:47.000 --> 01:24:54.000]  And the memory T cell issue, I was the first and for a very, very long time
[01:24:54.000 --> 01:24:56.000]  the only person talking about that.
[01:24:56.000 --> 01:25:03.000]  And that's why they had to shut down my channel because you can imagine if that caught traction,
[01:25:03.000 --> 01:25:08.000]  if that was covered by the news stories or doctors started to look into it and said,
[01:25:08.000 --> 01:25:13.000]  holy cow, that physiologist out there, Dave Champion, is right,
[01:25:13.000 --> 01:25:15.000]  is not creating memory T cells.
[01:25:15.000 --> 01:25:20.000]  The consequence of that, remember, this was still at the point where those people
[01:25:20.000 --> 01:25:24.000]  who were inclined to get vaccinated were like, oh, yeah, I'd love to get vaccinated.
[01:25:24.000 --> 01:25:26.000]  Let me run down and get vaccinated, right?
[01:25:26.000 --> 01:25:31.000]  So you can imagine if the memory T cell story had gotten traction,
[01:25:31.000 --> 01:25:35.000]  it started to be covered in the news, what you would have heard would have been this.
[01:25:35.000 --> 01:25:42.000]  When you become vaccinated, you will never, ever protection against SARS-CoV-2.
[01:25:42.000 --> 01:25:48.000]  You will get infected again and again and again and again and again and again.
[01:25:48.000 --> 01:25:58.000]  And if you want the minimalistic protection provided by the so-called vaccine,
[01:25:58.000 --> 01:26:06.000]  you will need to get injected roughly every 90 to 120 days for as long as you live.
[01:26:06.000 --> 01:26:10.000]  If that story had broken in the news,
[01:26:10.000 --> 01:26:14.000]  what would that have done to the enthusiasm of people to rush down and get vaccinated?
[01:26:14.000 --> 01:26:18.000]  It would have definitely deflated their balloons, that's for sure.
[01:26:18.000 --> 01:26:21.000]  Yeah, probably to the tunes of billions of dollars.
[01:26:21.000 --> 01:26:27.000]  So I'm sure people in government or people at Pfizer or both reached out to YouTube.
[01:26:27.000 --> 01:26:31.000]  And as soon as I did that, you need to start laying foundation to get rid of this guy
[01:26:31.000 --> 01:26:35.000]  because we can't have this guy putting this information out to tens of thousands
[01:26:35.000 --> 01:26:39.000]  or hundreds of thousands of people. It's too big a risk. You've got to shut him down.
[01:26:39.000 --> 01:26:43.000]  And then everything YouTube said after that was just trivial nonsense.
[01:26:43.000 --> 01:26:45.000]  We're going to ding you for this little trivial thing.
[01:26:45.000 --> 01:26:47.000]  We're going to ding you for that little trivial thing.
[01:26:47.000 --> 01:26:51.000]  And we've dinged you for several trivial things. We're going to remove your channel.
[01:26:51.000 --> 01:26:54.000]  But it was really all about the memory T cell issue.
[01:26:54.000 --> 01:26:56.000]  I'll say to the listeners out there,
[01:26:56.000 --> 01:27:03.000]  definitely go to Dr. Reality or Dave Champion PhD on Rumble
[01:27:03.000 --> 01:27:08.000]  and go back to some of his videos from over a year ago
[01:27:08.000 --> 01:27:16.000]  when he really dived into more of the science behind what he's saying right now.
[01:27:16.000 --> 01:27:19.000]  Obviously you're not going to go on for half an hour or whatever
[01:27:19.000 --> 01:27:22.000]  covering everything that you covered in those videos.
[01:27:22.000 --> 01:27:25.000]  So I encourage everybody to do that because it's very eye-opening.
[01:27:25.000 --> 01:27:30.000]  I've even played it on my show. I've played several of your clips on my show
[01:27:30.000 --> 01:27:33.000]  to get the word out there and stuff.
[01:27:33.000 --> 01:27:40.000]  And you do such a great job of taking a complex subject like this
[01:27:40.000 --> 01:27:45.000]  and especially complex studies and breaking it down into ways
[01:27:45.000 --> 01:27:49.000]  that the rest of us can understand very easily.
[01:27:49.000 --> 01:27:52.000]  I commend you on that.
[01:27:52.000 --> 01:27:57.000]  And more and more of the truth is coming out. It's being suppressed.
[01:27:57.000 --> 01:28:03.000]  You're not going to see it on CNN, not unless things really take a total turn.
[01:28:03.000 --> 01:28:09.000]  Maybe that will happen now that the emergency use authorization is coming to an end,
[01:28:09.000 --> 01:28:14.000]  now that Biden just signed the end of it as well.
[01:28:14.000 --> 01:28:22.000]  So maybe now after all of that, maybe we'll start to see more of the truth coming out,
[01:28:22.000 --> 01:28:28.000]  we can hope. I don't think that if you're looking at CNN or MSNBC,
[01:28:28.000 --> 01:28:31.000]  it'll be a while before you see it there.
[01:28:31.000 --> 01:28:36.000]  It's interesting that one of the little trivial things that YouTube dinged me for
[01:28:36.000 --> 01:28:41.000]  leading up to deplatforming was when I said masks don't work.
[01:28:41.000 --> 01:28:45.000]  And it wasn't just me passing my own judgment.
[01:28:45.000 --> 01:28:50.000]  I looked at every single bit of research on viruses and mask wearing
[01:28:50.000 --> 01:28:54.000]  from 1920 all the way through 2020.
[01:28:54.000 --> 01:29:00.000]  And for 100 years, the conclusion of every single study that had ever been done
[01:29:00.000 --> 01:29:05.000]  was that masks do not slow or halt the spread of a virus.
[01:29:05.000 --> 01:29:11.000]  So I came out, I said that, and that was one of the things that YouTube said,
[01:29:11.000 --> 01:29:16.000]  you violated our community standards or whatever the hell they call their lies.
[01:29:16.000 --> 01:29:19.000]  And that was one of the things that led up to my being deplatformed.
[01:29:19.000 --> 01:29:25.000]  Of course, I hope your audience knows probably about six weeks ago,
[01:29:25.000 --> 01:29:29.000]  the Cochrane collaboration, which was actually created about 20 years ago
[01:29:29.000 --> 01:29:33.000]  to challenge science that was suspected of being faulty
[01:29:33.000 --> 01:29:39.000]  and to actually put it through the wringer and determine whether it is true
[01:29:39.000 --> 01:29:43.000]  or whether as suspected it's actually false.
[01:29:43.000 --> 01:29:46.000]  When the Cochrane collaboration issues a report,
[01:29:46.000 --> 01:29:50.000]  that is considered the gold standard on whatever the scientific subject is
[01:29:50.000 --> 01:29:53.000]  no matter what previous studies have said.
[01:29:53.000 --> 01:29:58.000]  So the Cochrane collaboration did a retrospective analysis of studies
[01:29:58.000 --> 01:30:01.000]  concerning the wearing of masks and viruses.
[01:30:01.000 --> 01:30:06.000]  And they excluded a whole lot of studies because when they looked at the studies,
[01:30:06.000 --> 01:30:10.000]  they said they were so poorly performed that they would not include them in their analysis.
[01:30:10.000 --> 01:30:15.000]  They spent months and months pouring over all the data and analyzing it as they do
[01:30:15.000 --> 01:30:17.000]  in order to come up with their conclusion.
[01:30:17.000 --> 01:30:20.000]  When they issued a report, they had the scientific part,
[01:30:20.000 --> 01:30:23.000]  and then they had a plain English part, which I think most of your listeners
[01:30:23.000 --> 01:30:26.000]  will appreciate that there's somebody out there who's saying,
[01:30:26.000 --> 01:30:28.000]  we're not going to explain this to you in sciency language.
[01:30:28.000 --> 01:30:30.000]  They're going to do like Dave Champion does.
[01:30:30.000 --> 01:30:33.000]  They're also going to explain it to you in plain English.
[01:30:33.000 --> 01:30:38.000]  And the plain English part said masks have little or no effect.
[01:30:38.000 --> 01:30:44.000]  The thing that deplatformed me was that YouTube said I could not possibly be right.
[01:30:44.000 --> 01:30:46.000]  Masks don't work.
[01:30:46.000 --> 01:30:51.000]  So the gold standard of all science, scientific review, I should say,
[01:30:51.000 --> 01:30:53.000]  determined that masks don't work.
[01:30:53.000 --> 01:30:57.000]  Of course, that was only six weeks ago, and I was deplatformed probably what?
[01:30:57.000 --> 01:30:59.000]  More than a year ago now?
[01:30:59.000 --> 01:31:02.000]  My point being is YouTube and Facebook, they are – by the way,
[01:31:02.000 --> 01:31:07.000]  I should say they get paid hundreds of millions of dollars to do this combined.
[01:31:07.000 --> 01:31:10.000]  I don't know how much each of them gets paid, but they make millions
[01:31:10.000 --> 01:31:16.000]  and millions of dollars for agreeing to take down the truth in order to promote the lie.
[01:31:16.000 --> 01:31:21.000]  It was something like $2 billion that were given to social media companies
[01:31:21.000 --> 01:31:32.000]  by the government to censor what they determined as misinformation or disinformation.
[01:31:32.000 --> 01:31:39.000]  $2 billion is a good chunk of money to be giving Facebook or Twitter or YouTube
[01:31:39.000 --> 01:31:44.000]  or whatever to silence anything that goes against the narrative.
[01:31:45.000 --> 01:31:55.000]  We know that from the Twitter files that the FBI paid Twitter millions and millions of dollars,
[01:31:55.000 --> 01:32:03.000]  and the justification for that bribery was that they were reimbursing Twitter for Twitter's efforts.
[01:32:03.000 --> 01:32:05.000]  But here's the thing.
[01:32:05.000 --> 01:32:09.000]  If those posts that Twitter was taking down were violations of Twitter standards,
[01:32:09.000 --> 01:32:14.000]  then why would anybody be reimbursing Twitter for forcing its own standards?
[01:32:14.000 --> 01:32:19.000]  Because Facebook and YouTube are much larger than Twitter,
[01:32:19.000 --> 01:32:25.000]  including Twitter during the time before Musk, considerably larger.
[01:32:25.000 --> 01:32:30.000]  They were given many, many, many, many, many millions more than was Twitter.
[01:32:30.000 --> 01:32:34.000]  They can dress it up any way they want, but it was a bribe.
[01:32:34.000 --> 01:32:37.000]  We will give you millions and millions and millions and millions and millions of dollars
[01:32:37.000 --> 01:32:39.000]  if you do what we want.
[01:32:39.000 --> 01:32:42.000]  And if you don't, we won't. So what is that?
[01:32:42.000 --> 01:32:46.000]  Exactly. That's a full-on bribe, for sure.
[01:32:46.000 --> 01:32:52.000]  And then just recently, I know that you posted and I posted this study that came out,
[01:32:52.000 --> 01:33:00.000]  since we were talking about masks, how there is a new study out that links the mask wearing
[01:33:00.000 --> 01:33:05.000]  to what is being interpreted as long COVID.
[01:33:05.000 --> 01:33:13.000]  So is it long COVID or are the symptoms of long COVID or attributed to long COVID
[01:33:13.000 --> 01:33:19.000]  actually the result of long-term mask wearing that went on?
[01:33:19.000 --> 01:33:28.000]  And it's starting to look a lot more like people that were wearing masks 24-7
[01:33:28.000 --> 01:33:31.000]  and in their cars even though they were by themselves
[01:33:31.000 --> 01:33:36.000]  or when they were alone by themselves outside and outdoors,
[01:33:36.000 --> 01:33:44.000]  the oxygen deprivation and the accumulation of inhaling more CO2
[01:33:44.000 --> 01:33:52.000]  is looking like the real reason behind long COVID.
[01:33:52.000 --> 01:33:56.000]  Did I summarize that well or correct me if I'm wrong?
[01:33:56.000 --> 01:33:59.000]  You did. And I've never worn a mask.
[01:33:59.000 --> 01:34:06.000]  And it's funny because the battle law where I live said if you have a condition
[01:34:06.000 --> 01:34:09.000]  that prevents you from wearing a mask, you're not required to.
[01:34:09.000 --> 01:34:13.000]  And I always consider that my condition that alleviated me from that mandate was
[01:34:13.000 --> 01:34:16.000]  I have intelligence. That was my condition.
[01:34:16.000 --> 01:34:21.000]  I did one day take a bandana because I didn't own a mask, right?
[01:34:21.000 --> 01:34:25.000]  And I had seen some people in stores wearing bandanas, but I had a bandana.
[01:34:25.000 --> 01:34:28.000]  So I said, okay, I'm going to tie this bandana around my face
[01:34:28.000 --> 01:34:31.000]  and I'm going to see how this – I'm going to try and experience
[01:34:31.000 --> 01:34:34.000]  what these people I see in public are experiencing.
[01:34:34.000 --> 01:34:39.000]  And Laurieann, it was probably on my face about 15 seconds before I ripped it off.
[01:34:39.000 --> 01:34:44.000]  I could immediately sense the decrease in oxygen going into my lungs
[01:34:44.000 --> 01:34:48.000]  and the fact that I had to work harder to get the same amount of oxygen in.
[01:34:48.000 --> 01:34:53.000]  And of course, the study that you're referring to, the foundation of that study is
[01:34:53.000 --> 01:35:00.000]  that it cuts down on the oxygen being delivered – masks cut down the oxygen being delivered.
[01:35:00.000 --> 01:35:03.000]  Now, I don't know if you remember, if you go back to like mid-2020
[01:35:03.000 --> 01:35:07.000]  after the mask mandates were in place, there were all these assholes on social media
[01:35:07.000 --> 01:35:11.000]  with these little oximeters and they were saying, okay, I'm wearing my mask now
[01:35:11.000 --> 01:35:15.000]  and you see, it doesn't change the reading on my oximeter at all.
[01:35:15.000 --> 01:35:21.000]  Well, hate to tell them this, but here we are in 2023 in a scientific study
[01:35:21.000 --> 01:35:26.000]  done with a lot more sophisticated gear in the laboratory showed that it does, in fact,
[01:35:26.000 --> 01:35:29.000]  reduce OQ intake into the lungs.
[01:35:29.000 --> 01:35:39.000]  So when you talk about wearing this mask that cuts down oxygen to the lungs, oxygen is critical.
[01:35:39.000 --> 01:35:46.000]  There are 100 trillion cells in the human body and sufficient oxygen is absolutely essential
[01:35:47.000 --> 01:35:51.000]  for the good health of every single one of those 100 trillion cells.
[01:35:51.000 --> 01:35:55.000]  So if you're depriving yourself of even a few points of oxygen,
[01:35:55.000 --> 01:36:03.000]  you're depriving all of your cells of the oxygen that they need, not that they want, but that they need.
[01:36:03.000 --> 01:36:07.000]  So that was the foundation of the study to which you were referring.
[01:36:07.000 --> 01:36:13.000]  And then the premise is if you're wearing one of these things day in and day out,
[01:36:13.000 --> 01:36:21.000]  hours and hours and hours on end, it's only natural you're going to have unusual physical abnormalities.
[01:36:21.000 --> 01:36:25.000]  You're going to experience those because you're depriving the 100 trillion cells of your body
[01:36:25.000 --> 01:36:32.000]  of the oxygen they need and they cannot function correctly absent having every bit of oxygen.
[01:36:32.000 --> 01:36:35.000]  Our bodies are built to give ourselves the oxygen they need.
[01:36:35.000 --> 01:36:40.000]  When we start screwing with that and inhibiting the flow of oxygen to the cells,
[01:36:40.000 --> 01:36:45.000]  we are going to have problems. It's not that we may have problems, we are going to have problems.
[01:36:45.000 --> 01:36:50.000]  So people who have been wearing masks long term, 10, 15, 18 hours a day,
[01:36:50.000 --> 01:36:58.000]  I think there are some people with mental issues, they just can't take them off after going through the initial mandates.
[01:36:58.000 --> 01:37:02.000]  I mean, I see people still wearing them despite the Cochran collaboration.
[01:37:02.000 --> 01:37:05.000]  Same here. It baffles me.
[01:37:05.000 --> 01:37:10.000]  Yeah, I feel like walking up to these people going, so you haven't heard about the Cochran report, right?
[01:37:10.000 --> 01:37:13.000]  But I know it's a mental thing.
[01:37:13.000 --> 01:37:20.000]  You can only imagine, not only is it depriving your body of your needed oxygen,
[01:37:20.000 --> 01:37:27.000]  but like I mentioned before, you're inhaling your CO2, but you're exhaling.
[01:37:27.000 --> 01:37:31.000]  So it's like a double-edged sword there.
[01:37:31.000 --> 01:37:41.000]  Along with exhaling bacteria, exhaling does more than just exhale CO2.
[01:37:41.000 --> 01:37:47.000]  It's another way that your body removes waste from your body and from your lungs.
[01:37:47.000 --> 01:37:57.000]  So you're exhaling all of this stuff and then re-breathing it in again and again and again for hours using the mask.
[01:37:57.000 --> 01:38:04.000]  I remember people arguing with me, well, surgeons wear their surgical masks for hours during surgery.
[01:38:04.000 --> 01:38:07.000]  And I was like, no, they don't.
[01:38:07.000 --> 01:38:08.000]  You're absolutely right, they don't.
[01:38:08.000 --> 01:38:15.000]  Frequently. They change their masks, they take a break, they go, they change their masks, blah, blah, blah.
[01:38:15.000 --> 01:38:20.000]  They're not wearing the exact same mask for an eight-hour surgery.
[01:38:20.000 --> 01:38:23.000]  That's a falsehood right there, too.
[01:38:23.000 --> 01:38:36.000]  Scientific research has shown that surgeries conducted with masks and surgeries where the staff did not wear masks did not alter wound infection ratios at all.
[01:38:36.000 --> 01:38:46.000]  In other words, the patient, whether masks were worn or masks were not worn, was absolutely no medical difference for the patient.
[01:38:46.000 --> 01:38:51.000]  Yeah, because the surgical rooms are sterilized. Everything's washed.
[01:38:51.000 --> 01:38:59.000]  You know, you're washing the table, you're washing all the instruments and, you know, sterilizing everything that you're using.
[01:38:59.000 --> 01:39:12.000]  And so there's very little left to infect somebody that's on the surgical table unless you like directly sneeze on them or something, you know, then maybe.
[01:39:12.000 --> 01:39:23.000]  Yeah, but again, they found there was no difference in the wound infection rate between where surgical staff wore masks or surgical staff did not wear masks.
[01:39:23.000 --> 01:39:30.000]  So that should tell people that if in a situation like that where the epidermis has actually been opened up
[01:39:30.000 --> 01:39:41.000]  and the internal components of the body are available to have bacteria and viruses go directly into them and there was still no difference in their wound infection outcome,
[01:39:41.000 --> 01:39:48.000]  then walking around in your grocery store, it doesn't matter whether you wear a mask or not.
[01:39:48.000 --> 01:39:54.000]  That's what the Cochrane Collaboration analysis shows. I think the people who are still wearing them, I believe it's emotional.
[01:39:54.000 --> 01:40:00.000]  I wanted to get into the restrict act with you as well because we talked about income tax quite extensively.
[01:40:00.000 --> 01:40:07.000]  We've talked about some of the updates on COVID and then you just did a recent video on the restrict act,
[01:40:07.000 --> 01:40:16.000]  which I found to be really like your voice is one of the few that contradicts what a lot of other people are saying as far as,
[01:40:16.000 --> 01:40:24.000]  you know, it's being dubbed as Patriot Act 2.0, more restrictive, blah, blah, blah.
[01:40:24.000 --> 01:40:35.000]  And even by people like Lon Paul and your video on the restrict act was, you know, very enlightening in that realm
[01:40:35.000 --> 01:40:42.000]  because your thoughts differ. Did you want to talk about that a little bit before you go?
[01:40:42.000 --> 01:40:52.000]  No, because I'm out of time, but here's what I wanted to say. When you're comfortable with it, if you'd like to have me back on, I'd love to be your guest again.
[01:40:52.000 --> 01:40:56.000]  Not only would I like to talk about the restrict act, but if you think it would interest your audience,
[01:40:56.000 --> 01:41:05.000]  I would also like to talk about some of the false establishment narratives concerning things like dementia, Alzheimer's, cancer and so forth
[01:41:05.000 --> 01:41:14.000]  and talk about how those diseases are actually brought about, how human physiology truly works in reference to those kind of diseases
[01:41:14.000 --> 01:41:21.000]  so that people can compare, much like the income tax or much like the restrict act,
[01:41:21.000 --> 01:41:36.000]  if people can compare what the true science says to what science in quotes is saying based on being paid millions of dollars by big pharma
[01:41:36.000 --> 01:41:42.000]  who intends to make trillions of dollars off of products that will not cure these diseases.
[01:41:42.000 --> 01:41:49.000]  This is a setup, and people are going to die, and people are going to die so the big pharma can make trillions of dollars.
[01:41:49.000 --> 01:41:55.000]  And I don't know how the average American feels about it, but I will tell you that that appalls me.
[01:41:55.000 --> 01:42:08.000]  And if I can show through actual physiology how these things really occur and what the motivations are of the fake science that's being purchased by companies like Pfizer and others,
[01:42:09.000 --> 01:42:17.000]  I think it would help your audience to understand the direction they should be looking as opposed to what the media will be telling them.
[01:42:17.000 --> 01:42:24.000]  Because this is all going to be a – this whole thing I'm talking about now is going to be spiraling in a very big way moving forward
[01:42:24.000 --> 01:42:29.000]  now that COVID-19 or now that the emergency declaration will expire on May 11.
[01:42:30.000 --> 01:42:41.000]  This is going to be, medically speaking, the next big thing, or the way I would refer to it, is the next big falsehood that's going to be promoted to the American people through the media.
[01:42:41.000 --> 01:42:49.000]  Exactly. So you're saying you're open to a round three sometime soon, because I would, and I don't want to wait another year to have a round three either.
[01:42:50.000 --> 01:42:53.000]  Well, that's why I said we were open to a round three.
[01:42:53.000 --> 01:43:01.000]  Because we haven't even gotten into firearms. There are so many topics, like you're saying, that we just can't do in one show.
[01:43:01.000 --> 01:43:09.000]  So I mean, absolutely, I would love to do a round three sometime soon and not wait over a year again before we do so.
[01:43:10.000 --> 01:43:15.000]  I did write a book that's – it's the physiological version of Incubatex, Shattering the Mist.
[01:43:15.000 --> 01:43:19.000]  I take the law and the facts, and I break it down in a way that everybody can understand.
[01:43:19.000 --> 01:43:26.000]  I do the same thing in body science. I take human physiology and the way the American public has been misled about human physiology,
[01:43:26.000 --> 01:43:34.000]  most especially with an emphasis on nutritional metabolism, and I break all that down in a way that the science, in a way that every single person can understand,
[01:43:34.000 --> 01:43:37.000]  and you will be absolutely blown away.
[01:43:37.000 --> 01:43:53.000]  So you can get one or both of those at my website, which is drreality.news.com. You can find a couple other publications there as well.
[01:43:53.000 --> 01:43:57.000]  I also have a blog section if you care to look at some of the articles I've written there.
[01:43:58.000 --> 01:44:06.000]  And if you just want to follow me sort of day in and day out, as Loriann had said, Dave Champion PhD is what you want to search for on Rumble.
[01:44:06.000 --> 01:44:18.000]  I normally post a new subject every four to seven days, and you will find them as informative as you've hopefully found the things Loriann and I have discussed tonight.
[01:44:18.000 --> 01:44:21.000]  It has been a privilege. Have a great night.