the belligerent claimant in person
Allen Hacker
animated in the cause of freedom

Saturday, January 31, 2004

          0 comment(s)    

To: Clark Howard, KSFO

(I just sent this to Clark Howard of KSFO talk radio (San Francisco) after listening to him talk over Joe Banister for a while.)

Clark Howard,

I've been listening to you, caught part of your talk with Joe Banister. I'm not writing to comment on what Joe said, I'm writing about what you say.

I ask that you listen to yourself carefully for a while. You will hear yourself using such words as "believe" and "feel" instead of "know" and "think", and you will hear yourself defending your position from fear rather than principle. Further, you use the phrase "your taxes" reflexively.

My commentary, then, is to address the semantic indicators in your forms of speech, the sum of which is that you do not present yourself as someone who knows facts, but rather is convinced of his own opinions.

That's a sad thing, because, really, if you know exactly which statute, or which section of the IRS code reflects a statute, that clearly requires 'Jimmy Blow' working on a construction site nailing fences together to file and pay the US income tax, you can put an end to this entire issue. Just get Joe Bannister back on the air and tell him the law(s).

You see, that's the sticking point that is fueling the growth of what is becoming known as the truth in taxation movement. Not whether the income tax is valid in its correct applications, but whether or not it is being applied correctly. While everything else truly is a political issue, government not staying within the law is a legal issue. And it is the seed of anarchy. You could make a difference.

Just cite the law.

Thank you.

Sunday, January 18, 2004

          0 comment(s)    

Tin Soldiers

and Ashcroft coming...

500 dead in Iraq.

The only lesson that's ever been learned from history is that it repeats itself.

Beyond the ill-intentioned,
the apathetic,
and the clearly stupid,
we merry few are left to do it all.

Tuesday, January 13, 2004

          0 comment(s)    

But then...

It appears that Charlie Beall told Doug Kenline, among other derogatory remarks about internet communication and those of us who do not just rush willy-nilly about, that blogging is a waste of time.

Wrong, Charlie!

Waiting what, 4 days, for an update from WTP? Now that's a waste of time.

Thursday, January 08, 2004

          0 comment(s)    

Standing Up

It appears Charlie Beall called Doug Kenline to discuss what happened and work it out.

Kudos, Charlie. Way to do the right thing!

Wednesday, January 07, 2004

          0 comment(s)    

Interview with Juror 15

We're here today with Juror 15 from the trial recently concluded.

Ah, "Juror 15"? Why have you asked us to refer to you in that way? Why not let us use your name?


15: Because I was part of the process from beginning to end, and not just a spectator. I sat in judgement of the entire thing at every level.

Okay, so you're not saying with this pseudomymn that you were actually on the jury in the trial?

15: No.

Okay. Well, that clears up my next question, because I had been pretty sure that there were only fourteen jurors, twelve regulars and two alternates.

15: Absolutely. I was more like the fly on the wall, the wisp of intent to see the limits of the exercise. I was there to watch, to compare, to judge the performance in the light of all past performances.

Past performances? What do you mean by performance? What past performances?

15: Oh, you know, performances. Actions portrayed by actors on the stage of life. The things that people do, from the perspective of how they go about it.

Are you serious? Life as performance art, when a man's life and liberty are at stake?

15: Definitely. Especially. Particularly when the stakes are high like that. I don't even take notice in the affairs of men until the intensity level gets up there. I've no interest in the mundane.

That's cold, man.

15: From where you sit, I'd imagine a lot of things are. Life. Death. Everybody lives. Everybody dies. Some see it as a struggle, some see it as a celebration. I'm just watching to see how they do that seeing, how they come to their conclusion, and what they do with it.

This trial was an opportunity to really see something. The intensity spread out like vines in every direction, in many flavors. The fearful vines of those whose lives have lead them to the conclusion that they have no power in themselves, and so they came to hope that this man would prevail and set the stage for their own salvation.

The dark snaking shadow-lines that lead into fuzzy, difficult-to-see places where control lives and waits for the machinery of the system to devour all things good and bad, for they feed from the trough of all destruction. They care not for whom the bell tolls.

And the tendrils that closed in from the many who watched in rapt speculation, certain of impending disaster but at the same time secretly hoping to be surprised.

There are many others, some of them significantly distinctive in their own right, many more mere variations on one theme or another. But these were the ones that caught my mind.

An unsettling way to look at it, don't you think?

15: Not at all. Just one way among many. I leave it to others to assign desirability and horror to events and outcomes. As I said, I'm just there to judge the show.

Ah, well.... And how did you judge it? Guilty or innocent?

15: Why, neither, of course. I told you, I was judging the entire performance. Each role in relationship to all the others, each event and scene in the context of the whole, the whole itself.

Okay, I guess I need you to explain your approach to me a little better.

15: Certainly. Think of it as patterns. Events take place within patterns. Just like a movie and what is known as the screenwriter's paradigm. A few minutes to establish the context of the film, a plot twist that creates the mystery, a buildup to breakpoint, the final spin, and resolution. Or not resolution. Maybe a hanger ending instead.

Okay. And you're looking for what?

15: Conformity. Exceptions. Perfection in the details: did things go as they usually go, or did they surprise me.

And did you see anything notable?

15:Yes, I saw something rather curious. Surprising in one way but not another, but definitely curious.

I saw a scene within a scene, one that I would not normally expect to be there. A blatant alteration in the flow of things, a huge exception to the expected pattern.

It was during the defense's presentation of its case. It has to do with an idea known as the theory of the case.

The theory of the case?

15: Right. The presumption or explanation as to why whatever happened, happened. In this case, why the defendant chose the course he chose.

Well, that seems rather simple, doesn't it? He studied the law as far as he could, and he reviewed the work of others in the same questions, and he came to the conclusion that he was not required to do certain things, so he quit doing them. And he took a few corrective actions to try to remedy the mistake he had previously made in doing that which was not required to do. And then he got dragged into court to be destroyed because he followed his impression of the law. That's pretty much it, isn't it?

15: Yup. But for the exception, that was it. Man studies law, finds it doesn't say what he'd been told, acts on his new understanding, and the vested interests behind the fraud come after him with everything they have. It was already set up to be intense, deliciously so, no matter the outcome. And the outcome was indeed a variable, so I found the whole thing to be potentially quite tasty.

Quite frankly, though, I didn't expect to find a cherry right in the middle of the pie.

I'm not following you. Cherry? What about the theory of the case?

15: Why, don't you see? That's the point!

The defense put on testimony from a couple of recognized alternative authorities in the field of law in question, and they very credibly accounted for how a person like the defendant could get to where he said he was, and thus do what he did.

And the jury was eating it up. The day before, during the prosecution's expert-witness presentation, they were practically bored to tears. But now, they were interested. Probably because they were being asked to consider the astounding. And I found that delightfully intense. You know, for a moment there I actually thought the judge was interested too.

Yes, I had the same impression. So then why the nasty verdict today?

15: Hey, I'm not telepathic. You'll have to ask them that. I can only tell you that from what I saw, there was little cause for surprise. I only stuck around to feed off the emotion that was inevitable either way. I've seen the way of this trial many times before, and I knew it probably wouldn't turn out well.

Before? When?

15: Too many times to count, but not so often so blatant and right under the nose of an esteemed defense attorney. Usually it's a mistake made out of inexperience, or desperation or something.

All right, I'll bite. What was it? Was there something wrong with the theory of the case?

15: Oh, not, nothing like that. It was fine as far as it went. It was the diversion that put the different cake under the icing we all received later.

What diversion?

15: Well, after the two legal guys testified, and did a pretty good job of fleshing out the theory of the case, this other guy came up and testified about something completely different. Said that if you didn't like what the government was doing and it ignored your objections, Congress said a long time ago that you should not pay them the taxes they want until they listen to your complaints.

So?

15: So? SO??! So that's a completely different theory of the case! Here on the one hand we have a guy who simply isn't doing what he isn't required to do, and that all makes sense, but then on the other hand you're told that he doesn't have to do it even if he is supposed to do it, if he doesn't like this or that.

So the jury now must try to reconcile these conflicting theories of the case. But they can't do it. They can't because they can't really follow either one back to a foundation. The judge won't help them out on the law. So they're left to try to figure it out. But they can't. They're confused.

I gotta tell you, I don't even need dessert, it was so intense in there. You would not believe the fighting! They never got it straightened out. They ended up even more confused at the end than when they went in. So they gave up.

They had a guy who had almost convinced them that he'd acted on a decision based in the law. And then they had to consider that No, it was because he was a protester or something. So they were left with the nagging possibility that the guy didn't do it for the reasons he'd said, but for some other more political reason.

If they saw doubt, it was in the presentation of the defense. Their predictable response? If the defense doesn't know why he did what he did, how should we?

And why two different and conflicting theories of the case? Don't we automatically think someone is being dishonest when he can't keep his story straight?

So the stage was set for them to go the other way: Guilty by confusion.

Whoa! You're saying that the defense shot itself in the foot?

15: I'm not saying anything for sure. But look at the progression of events. The jury is bored with the prosecution, the jury is interested in the defense, the jury is confused. You could see it in some of their faces as the last man's testimony progressed.

All I know is that when you present conflicting theories of a case, you are very likely to lose.

No surprise there.

Well, Juror 15, we thank you for taking the time to talk with us. Not quite what we expected to hear....

15: It never is, is it?

Tuesday, January 06, 2004

          0 comment(s)    

On Being Decent

I try to be a decent man.

Sometimes in the name of defending decency, I can be brutal. I'm not so sure that is the most decent I can be.

In my next post below I unload pretty hard (again) on certain top WTP people. Regarding Charlie in particular, I took as my departure point the report I got from Doug Kenline. It turns out that Doug was far more devastated by what happened than I realized, and so my point of departure might not have been totally accurate. I'm not saying that it wasn't, I'm only saying that I don't know. So I am also saying that to whatever degree it was inaccurate and as a result I misspoke, I apologize. Not for the message in general, but only for any specific inaccuracies.

I've been a pretty harsh conscience for Bob Schulz. I could leave him alone, but--- no, I can't. He's too good a man with too great a vision to be allowed to run into oblivion unopposed. The emperoror's clothes are frayed, and I know one feels the embarassment more strongly while the jester is pointing out the flaws, but that discomfort is nothing compared to the inevitable self-damnation that comes when one realizes too late how far astray one has drifted.

And who the hell am I, anyway, to criticize people who are at least trying?

Well, it is first and foremost the role of a minster to be a voice for standards, and while I am out here on the soapbox rather than back home in my pulpit, yet I cannot be other than myself.

The problem is that I do have a brutal world-view. There are things that are right, and things that are wrong, and thus there are integrity and hypocricy.

A little wrong now and then is just being disoriented, and if it seldom reaches outside your own life, I will probably never say more than the first gentle thing. I will probably say it, to be sure, because I care about you, but I won't likely say it twice, or a second time loudly, because I also respect your free will, including your possession of the right to self-destruct as many trillions of times as it takes for you to tire of your bad habits.

But when you step out into the public arena and gain the trust of people who will rely on you without question, that might be another thing. It isn't, to the degree that they too have free will and the right to waste their lives on you. There, again, I might tell them once, ask them once to examine where they're going, but then it's up to them.

It's when you take that trust and intentionally amplify it, in fact play upon it, and you actually ask people to rely on you, that's when your failings have the potential to become a needle in my eye that I simply cannot choose to ignore, short of going back to my pulpit and my confessional and leaving the world to be whatever of itself it chooses to be.

Maybe I should do that. Recover to my religious practice and let the chips fall where they may.

After all, all of this is transition anyway, right? Nothing here is eternal?

That's the problem. You are eternal. And so long as it is the way of your existence, so is your misery.

I know, you're not miserable. Tell it to me, I'll believe you. Lie to me, I'll let you.

Doug poured out his personal misery by way of his audioblogging last night after his little smash-up against Charlie's I'm-a-Marine-and-you're-not way of expressing himself. I'm sure that Charlie was all wrapped up in his mission of the moment and had no idea of the tender nature of the spirit before him.

Certainly I have made the same mistake. The last time I got on Doug's case, I'm pretty sure I went too far. I said a thing or two that I didn't need to say; I made him look too hard at things he can't not look at anyway, things that he cannot live with and has not lived past.

That's the part I forget.

I get past everything. Something happened to me by the side of a river one day many years ago, and I got my eyes opened so far I can't even conceive of blinking any more. I see a simple, elegant, exquisite and yes, brutally honest universe of spirit that puts your every fiber right into your own face, forever. Hell would be a nice place compared to the stark light of Heaven, without it being possible to get past the things of Hell.

And that is what I really forget: that while I see something, and I know how to work with and in it, I should always remember that the other guy may not. Probably does not.

I can change my existence with a glance; all I have to do about something I don't want is contemplate its place with me for a moment, see that it is what it is, and it is done and I'm in a new place. And I know how to deliver others to that state.

But not through politics. Not as Mongo. Only from the pulpit and the confessional are my miracles possible, it seems.

Out here, I seem to cut too deep. I get a whiff of the cancer, and I have already drawn my scalpel and slashed. Trouble is, the dying man didn't know anything was wrong. So all he feels is the cut. And the loss, where something that he had, that he did not know that he had and that he did not know was bad but that he owned nonetheless, is now gone and I took it.

That's probably where Charlie will be when and if he learns about my blog of last evening. That's probably where Bob and Devvy are when they think of me: mystified, hurt, and even outraged.

How, they might cry, does one who loves us so, hurt us so effortlessly? Tha answer is simple: with an aching heart.

Be that as it may, Truth is a very sharp sword, and it cuts through darkness like a kiss through loneliness.

And heaven knows we are all lonely enough.

Certainly a little happiness with real depth would go a long way toward curing what ails the world. Unfortunately, what ails the world also serves a self-chosen few too well, and they will not go quietly into the night.

You know, it's the most amazing thing. I could abandon this entire scenario in the blink of an eye. I almost did, that day by the river. I would have, too, but for something I noticed. Waaay down, in the almost infinitely small "spaces" among the very effervescence of spirit itself, there is a bit of separation between each of us and all the rest of us, and for most of us, it is the dirt in the gears of life that spawns more agony than we dare notice. So I decided to stay, to do what I could to peel back the denial and to direct light through the eyes of the heart and hopefully, crying out with a voice like a trumpet, show the children of Abraham, and everybody else, too, the error of their way.

Some may say that I'm copping out when I insist that it is not I which causes the pain. But it is not. It is I who peels back the festering scab and rips the blinders off the lie in manifestation, so that a true healing may begin. May happen, actually, because in a miracle, there is no time. What was just isn't any longer, and what is seems so natural that within moments the Was is so gone as to be forgotten. It can be and should be that clean.

Even in the world at large. Or particularly so. You could all have awakened this morning after I've posted this, in a world where a good man and his bewildered friends are caught in the clutches of a force they don't understand, manifest as an IRS trial in a place called Texas, yet only, all of you, to go to bed tonight in a completely different world, one where the evil force has been dispelled by twelve men and women good and true, and the primary weapon of oppression in this once-stolen nation be gone, quickly to be forgotten like some bad and unbidden dream.

It could happen.

And I could be less brutal.

Anything is possible.

Monday, January 05, 2004

          0 comment(s)    

Non-sequitur

Non-sequitur is one of the best indicators of subtle insanity.

By its harshest definition, non-sequitur is an irrational non-response.

Non + sequitus (not in a connected sequence) --it does not follow.

What the heck am I on about Now?!!!

Well, Doug Kenline had been audioblogging and photoblogging the Dick Simkanin trial live from the road in Ft. Worth, Texas. Check it out. I've gotten my news all day on this crucial trial, from Doug's blog.

All hail Doug, King of the Blog.

Tonight, from the lobby of the hotel where several of out WTP-type friends were hanging after a grueling day of protesting, banner-hanging on the sidewalk, and court-witnessing, Doug was shooting photos for his blog. He'd already filed his last report by phone. He was having fun and in my never-so-humble opinion, he was doing the absolutely correct thing for the absolutely correct reasons. Doug was reporting an event. Doug is our impromptu press.

Anyway, right in the middle of a "debriefing" by Charlie Beall (pronounced 'Bell'), Beall reportedly interrupted himself, leveled an evil eye toward Doug, and demanded to know what he was doing. Doug told him, "I'm blogging!"

Apparently, Beall came unglued. He demanded Doug stop taking photos, and ranted about not wanting his picture or anything he say put out there. Doug was shocked.

Of course, the first big question to come out of this is, "Who is Charlie Beall to be telling Doug what he can't and can't do?"

Before I answer, I should probably tell you who Charlie is. Charlie Beall is a semi-public money-man who is there for WTP with all the bux he wants to spend on it WHEN he likes the project, and overbearing control freak who vows, "Nobody's going to make a living on my dime," when he doesn't like the project.

You've already seen him if you've thoroughly explored the WTP givemeliberty.org site. Here he is in a video with Bob Schulz, the first of only two episodes of the Liberty Hour that actually got made.

Some of you will remember that this is the show that got inexplicably blanked out from a live webcast. Even so, it's out there, archived all over the world and available on video from WTP itself.

And there's Charlie Beall, right up front beginning at 3:30 into it, for a full 15 minutes. Hardly an unknown face.

Which begs the first question you should have been asking all along? What's the big deal if Doug puts Charlie's picture up? Or quotes him? It's not as though he's some secret agent man nobody ever identified, after all. He's put himself out there already. It's way too late to be bashful.

So what is this, really? Same-old-same-old: This is yet another of the top people in WTP failing to realize that they can't act in the same manner as does the government they're criticizing and yet expect to retain any credibility.

Doug kept me up to date all day on what was happening In Dick Simkanin's trial. Faux News isn't telling me shit. And I resent the hell out of Charlie Beall or anyone else trying to censor that in any way. If Charlie wants to have a private meeting he can make any rules he wants. But in a hotel lobby, in an event that is happening despite WTP's slow and negligent join-up, he's out of line.

Oh, and there IS that little detail. It's Dick Simkanin's trial. Not Charlie's, or Bob's, or anybody else's.

So who is Charlie Beall to tell Doug Kenline that he can't blog the news around the Simkanin trial from a public arena?

Absolutely nobody!

I'll tell you something else Charlie isn't. He's not the incredible on-a-pedestal true-congressman-quality icon that Doug thought he was. Not anymore, at least, for Doug.

More on the general subject: Note as you watch Bob's intro to the video, his use of words like "arrogant", "out-of-control" and "unaccountable" in describing government employees and officials.

I suggest that the next time Bob feels the urge to use those words, he first glance around at his own inner circle, lest he remain unaware that he's living in a glass house.

Again, I would love to see WTP succeed. Not just because I care about our common goals, but because Yes, Bob moves me, as he moves everyone who hears him speak.

I just have a realllllllly big problem with the however inadvertent subversions of his idea by those in positions of control within WTP who are, indisputably, second-rate.

Later in the video Bob Schulz says, "We are non-partisan, believing that all political parties are by their nature corruptive – they cause individual loyalties to flow first to the Party, rather than to the Constitution, leading away from the Rule of Law to the Rule of Man and the Rule of whim."

I suggest that Bob reconsider that statement, and realize that it's not just political parties, it's all organizations.

But it's not because of anything about organization itself, no matter the focus. The problem is in the mindset of the people. In the tendency of far too many to flow their loyalties to leaders rather than principles, and in the tendency of far too many leaders to make it all out to be about themselves rather than the principles.

WTP can prove me wrong very easily. All it has to do is rise above the cult of personality that it has become, and free itself of the tendency to obey "arrogant, out-of-control and unaccountable" tyrants, whether public or private.

I say to you, my friends, that you ARE free. But only to the extent that you ignore tyranny.

Again I say to you, Doug, Just ignore it: blog on!

Sunday, January 04, 2004

          0 comment(s)    

"Making Law"

I participate in a private discussion group that was founded to brainstorm responses and defenses to legal aggression by government against the individual or his money/property.

Recently we touched on the "fruit of the poisonous tree" (exclusionary rule) doctrine. The question was raised whether someone could use it to prohibit the use of employment forms on grounds that they are obtained by fraud and misrepresentation.

Could be. But then, I have the following thoughts as well.

First, businesses are not cops, so unless you can show that they are acting as official agents of a police power you'll run into the argument that what you give them is voluntarily given and not to a cop, so it's not covered.

Also, the "exclusionary rule", which is what we've been talking about, does not apply in civil matters.

Civil matters do not involve rights against police powers, such as what most of the Bill of Rights is about. Civil matters are more about contracts and constructions. An example of a construction is the idea of liability for negligence: you don't build a big fire in your yard and leave it unattended while you go across town to a movie, and then get to complain when your neighbor's insurance company send you the bill for the damages when his house burns down.

It's when you get into contracts that this issue gets interesting. First, all contracts by definition are voluntary and informed. A coerced contract is void, and a contract made upon withheld information is voidable, maybe even punishable.

Of course, before you can base anything on contracts you must first be able to show that the area in question involves contracts to begin with. If the area is compulsory, then it does not. So if there is a legitimate statute package requiring you to do something, there is no contract between you and the government to do it, and you don't have a choice; you just have to do it.

It's not always so black and white, though, as when there are laws regulating restrictions and mandates on certain activities: you are not bound by those laws unless and until you enter into those activities. Then the question becomes whether those activities are proper objects of law. Or, in rare cases, whether you are a member of an excluded class who may not be required to conform to that law.

I could go on and on. But where would it go? An outline of law in general? I loved teaching it, but I've found that you can't teach it effectively outside a structured class-style setting.

Worse, none of it is relevant while cops are selected for mediocre intelligence, prosecutors are selected for malicious creativity, judges are selected for their ability to suck wind, and citizens deselect themselves through illiteracy.

You end up in court with a guy charged with "singing in public" under a commercial regulation against "public singing" without a license, with the police failing to disclose that the public singing law is a regulation of paid entertainment in commercial establishments such as restaurants, dinner houses, theatres, coffee shops and cafes; prosecutors looking to make a name by pulling off the next astounding application of law; judges worrying about which lawyer to offend the least (or how to stick it to the arrogant doesn't-think-he-needs-us pro se), and a citizen who can't read the law beyond the words used to write it and sees clearly that it is a law about public singing but argues completely off-point that he has a right to sing.

It's a dark and dumb world where no one discerns that public singing and singing in public are not at all the same thing.

I believe that there is only one issue in 97% of all cases brought against individuals by the federal government, and 82% of all cases brought against individuals by state and local governments: jurisdiction.

Does the law speak to the activity being done or prohibited within the circumstances of the specific incident, and does it reach the individual committing or failing to commit the action.

I walk down the street. No law says I can't. A law says people under 18 can't, if it's after midnight and before 6AM. Am I under 18? Yes? Then the law covers me? Yes? Always? No? Not if I'm on my way home from work. In that case, I'm a member of an excluded class; excluded within specific circumstances.

Some people need a driver license to do what they do with cars and trucks, boats and airplanes; some don't.

Some people get their money from taxable activities; some don't. Some people get some of their money from taxable activities and the rest elsewhere.

The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the claimant. In most cases, that's the accuser.

Tax agency says you have income. Maybe you do, maybe you don't. But did they say it was taxable income? And did they say why it could be taxed? Or did they just say, you had income, you owe tax. The one thing does not lead inevitably to the other. Make them prove a direct connection.

But avoid making a declaration about anything you did being okay, because now you're the claimant and the burden of proof shifts to you on that point, unless you're really sharp and a great enough legal tapdancer to get back off the thin ice and re-spin things back toward their proper burden of proof.

Company won't hire you without you fill in a W9? Sue them for fraud, on grounds that they turned out to try to coerce you into filing papers authorizing them to pay you less than was agreed. Get really creative with a local Bait-n-Switch law, arguing that while they weren't selling you an inferior car after luring you in with a good but unavailable one, they were trying to coerce you into accepting an inferior paycheck after luring you in with a better but in fact unavailable salary. Argue that the principle is the same, and that the law should apply to all instances where someone is promised one thing but only delivered something less. Most judges are smart enough to see the logic but far too stupid to discern the sophistry, and you just might get it on. Then you have precedent, and the legal lemmings will suck up to it forever. And the prosecutor will smile and shake your hand and wish he could be you.

I know what you're thinking: bait-and-switch laws only exist in vehicle and retail codes.

Even if that's true, so what? Bait-n-switch is an act of fraud. Fraud is prohibited everywhere. I'm just giving it a name.

But what if your retarded state doesn't have any bait-n-switch laws at all? No problem.

Go federal.

Any business that sells across a state line (can you say, 'web site'?), or deals with interstate suppliers is attachable to federal jurisdiction.

What law do you use? Why, the Federal Bait-n-Switch law, of course:

[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 16, Volume 1]
[Revised as of January 1, 2003]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 16CFR238.2]

[Page 169]

TITLE 16--COMMERCIAL PRACTICES

CHAPTER I--FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

PART 238--GUIDES AGAINST BAIT ADVERTISING--Table of Contents

Sec. 238.2 Initial offer.

(a) No statement or illustration should be used in any advertisement
which creates a false impression of the grade, quality, make, value,
currency of model, size, color, usability, or origin of the product
offered, or which may otherwise misrepresent the product in such a
manner that later, on disclosure of the true facts, the purchaser may be
switched from the advertised product to another.
(b) Even though the true facts are subsequently made known to the
buyer, the law is violated if the first contact or interview is secured
by deception. [Guide 2]

[[Page 170]]


It's already established that product means services as well; shouldn't be too hard to argue that selling a job at less than the advertised or promised salary is no different than selling a fob.

Besides. It doesn't burn my brain to grasp the idea that I pay for my money with my life.

Oh! And Hey! Pay a week's worth of attention to subsection (b)! Doesn't matter what happens after the trick is pulled, the deed is already done.

The top-level point? The government, and businesses, are making claims.

Make them prove it.

And they're committing fraud.

Make them pay.

All the children sing: "Put up or shut up. Na-nya, Vernice Kuglin, Vernice Kuglin... you guys can't even beat a girl...."

Sic'em, Dick!

Home


PUBLIC NOTICE:
   This website (blog) is an official News Outlet of the State of Æscir, by and through its agent and representative, ASC Missions Group, ntc, Speaker Allen Hacker, Trustee.
   Any attempt to censor or prosecute anything published herein will be met affirmatively with the fullest force of the law, without mercy or reservation and with absolute prejudice.

   Refer to
   US v Johnson
   76 F. Supp 538
,
   et seq, et al.

   However, anything published here is free for use so long as it is not altered or quoted out of context, and proper attribution is given.
   Allen


-:-
Truth or Fiction?
-:-
Truth via Paris
-:-

the belligerent claimant in person
Allen Hacker
animated in the cause of freedom