Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language
Detected language: English
[00:00.000 --> 00:02.480]  Welcome to the vodcast.
[00:02.480 --> 00:08.200]  In 2011, the U.S. Department of Justice obtained an injunction against me prohibiting me from
[00:08.200 --> 00:14.160]  assisting Americans who know the truth about the income tax from living it out successfully.
[00:14.160 --> 00:17.720]  I'm sure there are a good many Americans who believe if a courtin joins a person, that
[00:17.720 --> 00:20.680]  person must be doing something bad or wrong.
[00:20.680 --> 00:26.480]  In order to help my fellow Americans determine if that's true, I'm going to propose a simple
[00:26.480 --> 00:27.640]  task.
[00:27.640 --> 00:32.640]  If you can do this simple task, I'm going to give you $50,000.
[00:49.320 --> 00:50.800]  Let's start with this.
[00:50.800 --> 00:56.040]  I did a presentation on this subject, minus the cash reward, several years ago.
[00:56.040 --> 00:59.960]  When YouTube shut down my channel for telling the truth about SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, and
[00:59.960 --> 01:03.720]  the vaccines, that video was lost forever.
[01:03.720 --> 01:08.480]  As a side note, everything I said about SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, and the vaccines for which I was
[01:08.480 --> 01:13.260]  deplatformed has since been proven true in multiple scientific studies.
[01:13.260 --> 01:17.000]  The original video on this subject was lengthy and highly detailed.
[01:17.000 --> 01:22.040]  I'm going to keep this one shorter while still giving you all the information you need to
[01:22.040 --> 01:24.160]  take a shot at that $50,000.
[01:24.160 --> 01:28.640]  I'm going to begin by giving you a bit of background on how the court proceeding went,
[01:28.640 --> 01:33.640]  and then I'll divulge this simple task that can earn you $50,000.
[01:33.640 --> 01:37.080]  The case was heard before Judge Percy Anderson.
[01:37.080 --> 01:42.200]  In the original presentation, I quoted lawyers and court staff who'd worked for Anderson,
[01:42.200 --> 01:46.840]  and whose remarks painted a picture of how arrogant, unprofessional, and disliked Anderson
[01:46.840 --> 01:47.840]  is.
[01:47.840 --> 01:52.120]  Today, I'll simply mention that The Roaming Room, which is a website for legal professionals
[01:52.120 --> 01:59.480]  that rates judges, rated only two federal judges out of almost 1,800 worse than Anderson.
[01:59.480 --> 02:04.400]  Imagine being third from the bottom out of 1,800 judges.
[02:04.400 --> 02:06.840]  That's quite an achievement.
[02:06.840 --> 02:09.440]  Anderson is what I call a welfare judge.
[02:09.440 --> 02:13.920]  What that phrase means is the government sees a mediocre attorney not doing well in the
[02:13.920 --> 02:18.600]  private sector and approaches him or her with an offer of a federal judgeship, which is
[02:18.600 --> 02:23.600]  a lifetime judge, in exchange for doing the government's bidding in certain cases.
[02:23.600 --> 02:28.200]  The agreement is that in exchange for a prestigious lifetime job that can't be taken away, no
[02:28.200 --> 02:32.800]  matter how terrible the person's performance is, welfare judges like Anderson will corruptly
[02:32.800 --> 02:37.680]  hand the government a win in cases where the government could not prevail without the collusion
[02:37.680 --> 02:39.080]  of a dirty judge.
[02:39.080 --> 02:42.840]  But as I always say, please do not believe me.
[02:42.840 --> 02:45.720]  Make up your own mind as you hear the facts.
[02:45.760 --> 02:50.220]  The government's case was based on a claim by the IRS that I promoted to my clients three
[02:50.220 --> 02:54.200]  positions concerning U.S. tax law that had been adjudicated by the federal courts to
[02:54.200 --> 02:59.280]  be frivolous and, therefore, I was leading people astray from the truth and in doing
[02:59.280 --> 03:02.160]  so impeding the revenue of the U.S. Treasury.
[03:02.160 --> 03:07.600]  In short, the government was asserting it was the victim being harmed by false statement
[03:07.600 --> 03:10.240]  the government alleged I made.
[03:10.240 --> 03:13.880]  There are three factors that bear upon the IRS's claim against me.
[03:14.400 --> 03:17.080]  First, who exactly made the claim?
[03:17.080 --> 03:21.400]  Second, what was I alleged to have said to my clients that had previously been adjudicated
[03:21.400 --> 03:24.080]  by the federal courts to be frivolous?
[03:24.080 --> 03:28.360]  And three, because court hearings are adversarial in nature, could the government prove its
[03:28.360 --> 03:30.920]  case when its claim was challenged?
[03:30.920 --> 03:34.840]  In other words, in a court you can't just say something, you have to prove it with evidence
[03:34.840 --> 03:40.640]  upon the record and the validity of that evidence can be challenged by the defendant.
[03:40.640 --> 03:44.400]  Let's start by looking at the three things the government claimed I said.
[03:44.400 --> 03:48.960]  That's critical information if you want to take a shot at that $50,000 reward.
[03:48.960 --> 03:53.840]  The first thing the government said I said was the term person as used in income tax
[03:53.840 --> 03:58.400]  law does not include a natural person.
[03:58.400 --> 04:01.280]  Natural person means a person of flesh and blood.
[04:01.280 --> 04:07.780]  The government alleged I told clients person in the tax code is limited to legal fictions
[04:07.780 --> 04:09.540]  such as corporations.
[04:09.540 --> 04:13.980]  Now that you know what the government said I said, let's look at who exactly made the
[04:13.980 --> 04:14.980]  claim.
[04:14.980 --> 04:15.980]  I said those things.
[04:15.980 --> 04:19.980]  The claim was made in a sworn declaration to the court by an IRS employee who was assigned
[04:19.980 --> 04:23.860]  to a special team that was tasked with shutting me down.
[04:23.860 --> 04:28.180]  I wish I could tell you the name of the IRS employee who filed that declaration, but I
[04:28.180 --> 04:29.820]  can't.
[04:29.820 --> 04:33.060]  Because he used a pseudonym in his declaration.
[04:33.060 --> 04:35.020]  How do I know he used a pseudonym?
[04:35.020 --> 04:38.720]  I know that because he stated it in his declaration to the court.
[04:38.720 --> 04:42.760]  He told the court that he was not submitting the declaration under his real name but instead
[04:42.760 --> 04:47.880]  would only be using an IRS approved pseudonym, Thomas Chung.
[04:47.880 --> 04:53.480]  So some guy, whose name we don't know, who was assigned to a unit that had been working
[04:53.480 --> 04:59.280]  to silence me for years, made the claim I said those things.
[04:59.280 --> 05:02.600]  What's your credibility meter telling you at this point?
[05:02.600 --> 05:07.340]  Before I get into what happened when I challenged the declaration made by Mr. No Name, let's
[05:07.340 --> 05:10.260]  look at whether I actually said the things he claimed.
[05:10.260 --> 05:14.300]  This is also important to the $50,000 reward.
[05:14.300 --> 05:19.620]  Did I tell my clients, or anyone for that matter, that filing an income tax return is
[05:19.620 --> 05:21.280]  voluntary?
[05:21.280 --> 05:22.580]  Of course not.
[05:22.580 --> 05:25.180]  Because it's ludicrous.
[05:25.180 --> 05:28.580]  For 30 years I've told anyone who wants to know the truth of the income tax that filing
[05:28.580 --> 05:33.860]  a return is 100% not optional or voluntary, to use the government's word, if a person
[05:33.860 --> 05:38.860]  engages in activities that bring him or her within the realm where U.S. tax law imposes
[05:38.860 --> 05:42.660]  liability, that person must file a return.
[05:42.660 --> 05:46.020]  There is nothing voluntary about it.
[05:46.020 --> 05:51.460]  Did I tell my clients, or even say anywhere at any time, that person as defined for the
[05:51.460 --> 05:55.260]  purpose of income tax does not include flesh and blood human beings?
[05:55.260 --> 05:58.260]  No.
[05:58.260 --> 06:03.220]  And for the same reason I just mentioned a moment ago, it's utterly absurd.
[06:03.220 --> 06:07.300]  When I first started researching U.S. income tax law in 1993, I saw some people making
[06:07.300 --> 06:08.620]  that claim.
[06:08.620 --> 06:13.060]  Being a virgin to tax law at that time, I immediately looked into it because legislatures
[06:13.060 --> 06:18.540]  often define legal terms to mean things the words do not mean in ordinary English.
[06:18.540 --> 06:24.700]  And to be clear, in some statutes, person is defined to expressly exclude a natural
[06:24.700 --> 06:25.700]  person.
[06:25.700 --> 06:31.360]  In some statutes, person expressly includes or excludes the federal government.
[06:31.360 --> 06:35.440]  The point being there is not one fixed meaning of person in law, and a good researcher will
[06:35.440 --> 06:40.320]  always read the definition section applicable to a statute or group of statutes.
[06:40.320 --> 06:46.080]  Accordingly, back in 1993, I checked into the claim that person as used in income tax
[06:46.080 --> 06:52.660]  law excludes the natural person and found it to be false.
[06:52.660 --> 06:56.980]  Because the inclusion of a natural person is the default meaning of person in law, when
[06:56.980 --> 07:02.140]  a legislature wants to exclude the natural person, they specifically state that in the
[07:02.140 --> 07:03.140]  definition.
[07:03.140 --> 07:07.780]  There is no such exclusionary language in the definition of person for the purpose of
[07:07.780 --> 07:09.780]  the income tax.
[07:09.780 --> 07:16.020]  Did I tell my clients, or say it anywhere at any time, that wages, as defined for the
[07:16.020 --> 07:18.700]  purpose of income tax, are not taxable?
[07:18.700 --> 07:24.300]  I'm sure you can anticipate the answer, no, I never said any such thing, and again, because
[07:24.300 --> 07:25.700]  it's absurd.
[07:25.700 --> 07:30.140]  Here are the facts about wages as defined for the purpose of income tax.
[07:30.140 --> 07:33.800]  Remember just a moment ago I said legislatures often define legal terms to mean things the
[07:33.800 --> 07:37.460]  word does not mean in ordinary English?
[07:37.460 --> 07:39.540]  Wages is just such a case.
[07:39.540 --> 07:43.300]  In ordinary English, wages simply means the compensation you receive from someone from
[07:43.300 --> 07:44.860]  whom you've done work.
[07:44.860 --> 07:48.580]  In the plain English definition, there are no qualifiers to the meeting, nor any factors
[07:48.580 --> 07:53.100]  that limit when compensation is or is not considered wages.
[07:53.100 --> 07:58.980]  Perhaps the opposite is true in the legislatively provided definition of wages for income tax.
[07:58.980 --> 08:04.940]  Congress gave wages an incredibly narrow definition that excludes the vast majority of working
[08:04.940 --> 08:07.020]  people in the United States.
[08:07.020 --> 08:11.140]  What that means is for the tiny percentage of people who are earning wages, as defined
[08:11.140 --> 08:16.080]  by Congress, their pay is absolutely subject to income tax, while the pay of those who
[08:16.080 --> 08:22.380]  fall outside the narrow, congressionally provided definition is not subject to income tax.
[08:22.380 --> 08:26.860]  So, did I ever say those whose pay falls under the narrow, statutory definition of
[08:26.860 --> 08:29.260]  wages are not subject to income tax?
[08:29.260 --> 08:30.860]  Of course not.
[08:30.860 --> 08:33.980]  At this point, in light of the fact that I never said any of those things, you might
[08:33.980 --> 08:40.700]  be wondering why the government chose to claim I made those three particular statements.
[08:40.700 --> 08:45.460]  The reason is the federal courts have adjudicated those three statements to be false, and the
[08:45.460 --> 08:49.820]  crux of the government's case to stop me from helping my fellow citizens was that I
[08:49.820 --> 08:52.100]  was promoting false arguments.
[08:52.100 --> 08:56.100]  Without the courts having already adjudicated them to be false, the government couldn't
[08:56.100 --> 08:59.820]  argue I was promoting false claims.
[08:59.820 --> 09:01.540]  And here's the thing.
[09:01.540 --> 09:03.600]  I agree with those courts.
[09:03.600 --> 09:08.620]  The statements the government claimed I said are indeed false.
[09:08.620 --> 09:12.100]  At this point, you may be wondering why the government didn't offer the court things
[09:12.100 --> 09:15.420]  I'd really said.
[09:15.420 --> 09:17.060]  Stand by for that.
[09:17.060 --> 09:18.600]  Now we get to the good part.
[09:18.600 --> 09:22.880]  If we can call criminal conduct between the judge and the attorney for the government
[09:22.880 --> 09:24.400]  the good part.
[09:24.400 --> 09:29.160]  Since I never said any of those things, Mr. No Name was obviously lying in his sworn declaration
[09:29.160 --> 09:30.160]  to the court.
[09:30.160 --> 09:33.880]  He was committing perjury, which is a felony.
[09:33.880 --> 09:37.960]  Committing perjury in court could cost Mr. No Name his job.
[09:37.960 --> 09:40.440]  Why would he risk his job like that?
[09:40.440 --> 09:43.680]  Because, in truth, there was no risk.
[09:43.680 --> 09:47.280]  The attorney for the government and the judge had already agreed how the court would handle
[09:47.280 --> 09:53.080]  the matter to ensure Mr. No Name could submit his perjured declaration while making it impossible
[09:53.080 --> 09:55.880]  for his perjury to be discovered.
[09:55.880 --> 09:59.200]  Before I go further, I want to be crystal clear about what I'm saying here.
[09:59.200 --> 10:05.600]  I am plainly stating an attorney for the government and Judge Anderson discussed my case outside
[10:05.600 --> 10:10.960]  the presence of the defense and during that conversation entered into a criminal conspiracy
[10:10.960 --> 10:14.640]  to cover up perjury known to both parties.
[10:14.640 --> 10:20.920]  If you're thinking that's a pretty serious accusation, I couldn't agree with you more.
[10:20.920 --> 10:25.760]  Because I never said any of the things the government said I said, my attorney requested
[10:25.760 --> 10:30.280]  an evidentiary hearing to question Mr. No Name about the particulars underlying the
[10:30.280 --> 10:32.600]  claims he made in his declaration.
[10:32.600 --> 10:38.000]  As an example, Mr. No Name claimed I said filing an income tax return is voluntary.
[10:38.000 --> 10:39.900]  He didn't substantiate that claim.
[10:39.900 --> 10:45.380]  He made what the law calls a naked assertion, which means he swore to it without offering
[10:45.380 --> 10:47.060]  any proof it was true.
[10:47.060 --> 10:51.620]  An evidentiary hearing would allow my attorney to question Mr. No Name for the facts supporting
[10:51.620 --> 10:55.900]  his claim, such as where and when I allegedly said those things.
[10:55.900 --> 11:01.700]  If, as an example, Mr. No Name responded that I'd said those things in an online chat group,
[11:01.700 --> 11:05.100]  my attorney would then have the legal right to demand the government produce documentary
[11:05.100 --> 11:07.500]  evidence supporting that assertion.
[11:07.500 --> 11:12.100]  I'm sure you can see the problem if Mr. No Name couldn't support any of his claims with
[11:12.100 --> 11:13.740]  underlying facts.
[11:13.740 --> 11:16.860]  Without supporting facts, my attorney could demand the declaration be stricken from the
[11:16.860 --> 11:21.180]  record, which would have eviscerated the government's case.
[11:21.180 --> 11:25.780]  Further, if Mr. No Name couldn't support his sworn statements with supporting facts,
[11:25.780 --> 11:30.860]  it would provide a very strong inference he'd committed not just perjury, but also fraud
[11:30.860 --> 11:32.700]  upon the court.
[11:32.700 --> 11:37.220]  An evidentiary hearing to determine if the government's assertions are fact-based or
[11:37.220 --> 11:41.740]  made-up bullshit isn't a mere nicety, it's a constitutional requirement that's part
[11:41.740 --> 11:43.380]  of due process.
[11:43.380 --> 11:46.860]  Due process is generally enshrined in our legal system and applies to both criminal
[11:46.860 --> 11:52.140]  and civil cases, but the due process clause in the Constitution is meant to ensure citizens
[11:52.140 --> 11:56.740]  are treated fairly in judicial proceedings by prohibiting the government from violating
[11:56.740 --> 12:01.680]  a defendant's rights, one of which is the right to inquire of the government if facts
[12:01.680 --> 12:04.060]  exist to support its allegations.
[12:04.060 --> 12:08.740]  In a civil matter, such as we're discussing here, that right is accomplished by an evidentiary
[12:08.740 --> 12:09.740]  hearing.
[12:09.740 --> 12:13.860]  Now that you understand what an evidentiary hearing is and that it is a constitutionally
[12:13.860 --> 12:18.620]  mandated part of due process, what happened when my attorney requested an evidentiary
[12:18.620 --> 12:25.060]  hearing to determine if any facts existed to support Mr. No Name's claims?
[12:25.060 --> 12:28.220]  Judge Anderson denied the request.
[12:28.460 --> 12:30.460]  Yes, you heard me right.
[12:30.460 --> 12:36.180]  He denied me a constitutionally mandated procedure of due process.
[12:36.180 --> 12:40.740]  Leaving aside the unconstitutional aspect for a moment, in a practical sense, what Anderson's
[12:40.740 --> 12:45.020]  denial communicated was that in his court, the government was free to make any claim
[12:45.020 --> 12:51.020]  it wanted without a shred of evidence and its unsupported claims will stand as truth
[12:51.020 --> 12:56.540]  because the defendant will be denied the constitutionally mandated opportunity to determine whether
[12:56.540 --> 13:02.900]  the government is flat out lying, as it was in my case.
[13:02.900 --> 13:06.260]  If you started this presentation believing that if a court issues an injunction, the
[13:06.260 --> 13:12.740]  person enjoined must have been doing something bad or wrong, how do you feel about that now?
[13:12.740 --> 13:16.700]  Denying my request for an evidentiary hearing was not the only constitutionally enumerated
[13:16.700 --> 13:19.980]  right Anderson denied me during the proceeding.
[13:19.980 --> 13:24.140]  At one point, Anderson ordered me to meet with the IRS and answer questions they put
[13:24.140 --> 13:25.140]  to me.
[13:25.340 --> 13:28.560]  I didn't have a problem with that because I have nothing to hide and I'd previously
[13:28.560 --> 13:32.460]  made myself available to the IRS whenever they asked me to meet.
[13:32.460 --> 13:36.980]  My attorney and I, and IRS attorneys, went to an office across from the courthouse where
[13:36.980 --> 13:41.900]  the IRS attorney asked me probably somewhere in the range of a hundred questions.
[13:41.900 --> 13:45.740]  On perhaps three or four, my attorney leaned over, you know how they do when you're watching
[13:45.740 --> 13:49.340]  a television show or movie, directed me to take the fifth.
[13:49.340 --> 13:54.220]  Then as now, I had no idea why he asked me to do that on those couple of questions, but
[13:54.220 --> 13:57.800]  I was paying him to be there and advise me, so I did as he asked.
[13:57.800 --> 14:01.540]  When we got back to the courtroom, the government complained to Anderson that I'd not answered
[14:01.540 --> 14:03.020]  those few questions.
[14:03.020 --> 14:09.340]  My attorney immediately said, Your Honor, my client took the fifth on advice of counsel.
[14:09.340 --> 14:15.340]  Anderson completely ignored my attorney, looked right at me and said, if you take the fifth
[14:15.340 --> 14:18.500]  in my courtroom, you're going to jail.
[14:18.500 --> 14:19.500]  That's a quote, by the way.
[14:19.500 --> 14:23.980]  How are you feeling about the legitimacy of the proceeding now?
[14:23.980 --> 14:26.260]  So did I go to jail?
[14:26.260 --> 14:31.880]  I did, because before I could put a filter in place, I stood up, looked at that corrupt
[14:31.880 --> 14:37.140]  scumbag right in the face and told him to go fuck himself.
[14:37.140 --> 14:39.520]  Yes, I said that.
[14:39.520 --> 14:42.020]  At that point, he panicked and he fled the courtroom.
[14:42.020 --> 14:46.860]  He literally jumped up and ran out of the courtroom, telling the clerk as he ran out
[14:46.860 --> 14:48.980]  the door to call the marshals.
[14:48.980 --> 14:55.060]  I was then jailed for contempt of court, and I do it all over again.
[14:55.060 --> 15:01.300]  Percy Anderson is a Constitution-violating cowardly little bitch, and I have zero problem
[15:01.300 --> 15:03.980]  telling him that to his face.
[15:03.980 --> 15:09.700]  Later, for some odd reason, Anderson attempted to justify his unconstitutional act of denying
[15:09.700 --> 15:13.780]  me my right to remain silent by saying that if I intended to take the fifth, I needed
[15:13.780 --> 15:17.100]  to inform him of that during my first appearance.
[15:17.100 --> 15:21.180]  Every first-year law school student knows that's complete bullshit.
[15:21.180 --> 15:25.480]  Not only is there no requirement in law, either statutory or decisional, to inform a judge
[15:25.480 --> 15:30.700]  in advance that later in the case you may take the fifth, but in fact the law says just
[15:30.700 --> 15:32.100]  the opposite.
[15:32.100 --> 15:35.060]  You may have heard the term blanket fifth.
[15:35.060 --> 15:39.260]  That's when a defendant states he or she is going to take the fifth prior to hearing
[15:39.260 --> 15:42.780]  any of the questions the opposing party intends to ask.
[15:42.780 --> 15:47.980]  Here is the Department of Justice's official statement about a blanket fifth summarizing
[15:47.980 --> 15:49.220]  the case law.
[15:49.220 --> 15:50.220]  Quote,
[15:50.220 --> 15:55.700]  The blanket, or general, assertion of a Fifth Amendment privilege is insufficient as a matter
[15:55.700 --> 15:56.700]  of law.
[15:56.700 --> 16:03.580]  Instead, the Fifth Amendment privilege must be asserted on a question-by-question basis
[16:03.580 --> 16:06.860]  close, quote.
[16:06.860 --> 16:10.740]  Since no questions were asked of me during my initial appearance before Anderson, if
[16:10.740 --> 16:14.520]  If I'd done as he corruptly stated and told him I would be taking the fifth without having
[16:14.520 --> 16:20.220]  heard a single question, I'd have been making a blanket fifth, which is legally impermissible,
[16:20.220 --> 16:23.620]  what DOJ calls insufficient as a matter of law.
[16:23.620 --> 16:29.220]  I'm sure you can see why he is rated as the third worst federal judge in the nation.
[16:29.220 --> 16:34.860]  Earlier, I told you I never said any of the things Mr. No Name claimed I said in his
[16:34.860 --> 16:37.220]  unsupported declaration.
[16:37.220 --> 16:39.400]  Is there evidence I never said those things?
[16:39.400 --> 16:44.440]  There is, though it's circumstantial, because it is impossible to prove a negative.
[16:44.440 --> 16:48.320]  So what is the evidence I never said the things Mr. No Name claimed?
[16:48.320 --> 16:53.040]  First, we have Anderson unconstitutionally barring me from questioning Mr. No Name in
[16:53.040 --> 16:54.860]  an evidentiary hearing.
[16:54.860 --> 16:59.440]  For any thinking person, that alone should be conclusive that I never said those things.
[16:59.440 --> 17:04.600]  Second, it's been more than a decade since Mr. No Name made his unsupported claims and
[17:04.600 --> 17:09.000]  no one has been able to provide a single example of me saying those things.
[17:09.000 --> 17:12.520]  Given that I've written about the truth of the income tax prolifically on the internet
[17:12.520 --> 17:17.600]  since the late 1990s and have done countless video presentations on the subject over the
[17:17.600 --> 17:22.360]  last 15 years, had I said such things, it should have been easy for someone to find
[17:22.360 --> 17:25.240]  instances where I made those statements.
[17:25.240 --> 17:26.560]  No one has.
[17:26.560 --> 17:27.560]  Ever.
[17:27.560 --> 17:33.240]  Third, and this is where the $50,000 reward comes in, I released income tax shattering
[17:33.240 --> 17:38.820]  the myths in 2010, a year before the government sought its injunction.
[17:38.820 --> 17:45.060]  In one of the government's filing, DOJ admitted it had a copy of my book, Income Tax Shattering
[17:45.060 --> 17:48.660]  the Myths Contains Every Meaningful Thing Americans Need to Know Concerning the Truth
[17:48.660 --> 17:49.660]  of the Income Tax.
[17:49.660 --> 17:52.180]  Let me repeat that.
[17:52.180 --> 17:57.660]  Income Tax Shattering the Myths Contains EVERY meaningful thing Americans need to know concerning
[17:57.660 --> 17:59.360]  the truth of the income tax.
[17:59.360 --> 18:03.940]  If I thought the term person as used in the tax code didn't include a natural person,
[18:03.940 --> 18:07.920]  as you can imagine, that would be featured prominently in Income Tax Shattering the Myths.
[18:07.920 --> 18:12.300]  If I thought wages as defined for income tax weren't taxable, you would expect that
[18:12.300 --> 18:14.560]  to appear in Income Tax Shattering the Myths.
[18:14.560 --> 18:19.680]  And if I believed filing an income tax return was voluntary, I'd imagine that would be
[18:19.680 --> 18:22.520]  the most prominent message of the book.
[18:22.520 --> 18:26.840]  So here's how you can win $50,000.
[18:26.840 --> 18:32.240]  All you have to do is find in Income Tax Shattering the Myths where I say person doesn't include
[18:32.240 --> 18:37.460]  a natural person, wages as defined for income tax purposes aren't taxable, or filing an
[18:37.460 --> 18:40.560]  income tax return is voluntary.
[18:40.560 --> 18:44.820]  And to make it as easy as possible for you to win the $50,000, you don't have to find
[18:44.820 --> 18:45.820]  all of them.
[18:45.820 --> 18:48.740]  You only need to find one of the three.
[18:48.740 --> 18:51.300]  Pretty simple, right?
[18:51.300 --> 18:54.780]  Or maybe not so much.
[18:54.780 --> 18:58.860]  You have to wonder why the IRS had one of its employees commit perjury.
[18:58.860 --> 19:04.180]  Had a DOJ attorney and a federal judge criminally conspire to conceal the perjury, that conspiracy
[19:04.180 --> 19:08.400]  itself being a felony, if the government could have just placed my book into evidence
[19:08.400 --> 19:13.540]  and read passages into the court record where I said those things.
[19:13.540 --> 19:19.100]  Why all the subterfuge and federal officers committing felonies if it was right there
[19:19.100 --> 19:23.660]  in my book, a copy of which the government admitted it has?
[19:23.660 --> 19:27.660]  At this point, some of you may be doubting you'll be able to find in Income Tax Shattering
[19:27.660 --> 19:31.900]  the Myths the three things Mr. No Name said I said.
[19:31.900 --> 19:34.120]  And you're not wrong.
[19:34.120 --> 19:38.160]  And now I'm going to tell you how the corrupt process the government used to fraudulently
[19:38.160 --> 19:44.540]  get an injunction against me is fantastic news for the American people.
[19:44.540 --> 19:46.100]  For you.
[19:46.100 --> 19:49.580]  Remember I said the government had to attribute to me positions that have been adjudicated
[19:49.580 --> 19:52.580]  to be frivolous in order to get the injunction?
[19:52.580 --> 19:56.340]  Do you also remember that despite possessing a copy of Income Tax Shattering the Myths,
[19:56.340 --> 20:01.820]  the government didn't offer into evidence a single word of what I have really said?
[20:01.820 --> 20:06.140]  Now, keeping in mind that the government had to make it look like I was promoting false
[20:06.140 --> 20:10.980]  positions, why do you think the government didn't place into evidence a single word
[20:10.980 --> 20:13.180]  from Income Tax Shattering the Myths?
[20:13.180 --> 20:16.880]  I'm sure it's obvious to you, but I'll say it anyway.
[20:16.880 --> 20:22.140]  Because every word of Income Tax Shattering the Myths is factual and legally accurate.
[20:22.140 --> 20:27.500]  Primarily because it's not my words, it's the government's words.
[20:27.500 --> 20:30.620]  Let's leave aside Anderson's corruption.
[20:30.620 --> 20:34.700]  Leave aside that attorneys for the government discussed the case with the judge without
[20:34.700 --> 20:36.660]  me and my counsel present.
[20:36.660 --> 20:41.140]  Leave aside that Judge Anderson, an attorney for the government, committed multiple felonies.
[20:41.140 --> 20:45.540]  Leave aside that an IRS employee knowingly, willfully, and intentionally committed perjury.
[20:45.540 --> 20:51.860]  If we leave all of that aside, the fantastic news is the government's refusal to enter
[20:51.860 --> 20:57.140]  Income Tax Shattering the Myths into evidence or quote even a single word from it proves
[20:57.140 --> 21:01.620]  to every thinking American that what you'll find in Income Tax Shattering the Myths is
[21:01.620 --> 21:06.100]  the truth concerning upon whom Congress has imposed the income tax and more importantly
[21:06.100 --> 21:07.960]  upon whom it has not.
[21:07.960 --> 21:12.140]  If you're living and working in any of the 50 states earning your own domestic income,
[21:12.140 --> 21:16.580]  you do not owe a penny of income tax and never have.
[21:16.580 --> 21:20.360]  Let's consider how credible you find the government's claims about me.
[21:20.360 --> 21:23.700]  Are you willing to spend a few dollars to get a copy of Income Tax Shattering the Myths
[21:23.860 --> 21:29.900]  for the purpose of finding even one of the government's claims and receiving $50,000?
[21:29.900 --> 21:35.180]  If your answer is no, then you know the government lied its ass off to cover up that what's
[21:35.180 --> 21:39.540]  in Income Tax Shattering the Myths is factual and legally accurate.
[21:39.540 --> 21:43.780]  It is the truth that can set our nation free.
[21:43.780 --> 21:48.500]  And what that means is you have access to a truth that is far and away more important
[21:48.500 --> 21:50.580]  than $50,000.
[21:50.580 --> 21:53.540]  It's a truth about freedom and liberty.
[21:53.540 --> 21:59.260]  And it's not some feel-good hyperbole, but solid information you can use to take back
[21:59.260 --> 22:01.180]  your liberty.
[22:01.180 --> 22:07.460]  To get Income Tax Shattering the Myths, go to drreality.news, drreality.news, I'll put
[22:07.460 --> 22:08.780]  the link in the notes.
[22:08.780 --> 22:13.220]  By purchasing Income Tax Shattering the Myths, you not only do something amazing for yourself,
[22:13.220 --> 22:17.580]  but you help me to continue to be here for you with these thought-provoking presentations.
[22:17.580 --> 22:18.580]  Thank you.