Posted 12:36 PM by Gerald Klaas
Link to Vernie Kuglin story on GoMemphis.com. (Thanks Doug, Fred and Rose for setting up the IRS cases blog. Fantastic idea! Let's get our case updates in one spot. Now let's see if we can get timely updates on Larken Rose, Irwin Schiff, Dick Simkanin, William Lear et al.)

Posted 9:32 PM by Gerald Klaas
Great news over at Gene Chapman blog regarding Vernice B. Kuglin (Vernie) being found not guilty of willful failure to file. I don't find any other news doing a Google search, only the District Court calendar. This one deserves big coverage. WorldNetDaily we need you. Great work Larry Becraft.

Posted 9:15 PM by Gerald Klaas
The California Supreme Court today declined to intervene in the recall election. This means that Gray Davis doesn't get the chance to succeed himself. Bye-bye Gray. If you weren't history before, Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamente nailed that last coffin nail for you now that he broke ranks and jumped into the race. Also in the last 24 hours, Arnold and Arianna joined the race. At this point, it's a horse race, but right now, I'd bet on Bustamante to win, Arnold to show, and Arianna to place.

Posted 10:49 PM by Gerald Klaas
Thank you, Doug for the link to Jon Davis' withdrawal letter as WTPC coordinator of King County, California. I spent some time reading his premise page and see that he is well educated on the facts and I generally agree with his logic. One paragraph in his April 16, 2003 essay describes my experience exactly for becoming passionate about the Tax Honesty movement

Well I hit cognitive dissonance. I was not at ease. If there is any discrepancy in the legitimacy of the Income Tax, only my servant Government's blatant deception of the general public would explain how it came to be. I honestly wanted to find proof that these rumors were in error. But the more I tried to research the facts--not the rumors and the distractions, but the facts, as in the laws themselves and what the federal government says about it--the more cover-ups and lies I found on the part of the federal government.

As far as his withdrawal as WTPC coordinator is concerned, I guess I'm a little surprised that he signed up in the first place. He obviously has his own well researched, logical and religious reasoning for his approach to the issue and I wouldn't expect him to "fall in" with a group, but rather attempt to lead his own. In his "withdrawal letter" I do have one argument with his reasoning. His stated reason for withdrawal is that WTPC and WTPF do not respond to his questions

If Bob's standard of logic is that the refusal to answer such questions, and to fail to deny them with accurate evidence, is clearly a form of admittance, then Bob must eat his own words. While I GREATLY admire his candor and his sincere desire to stand up for Truth, I cannot submit myself to another corporation that is inherently political (just like Government) and yet that directly contradicts itself to this extent (just like Government).

My reaction to this is that Bob Schulz' organization is not constituted with a document that guarantees all members timely and true responses to all members who petition. Our Federal government was founded with such a Constitution. So while I expect my government to answer my questions, I have no such expectation of Bob Schulz or the We the People Foundation. Either I like the Foundation and remain a member, or I dislike it and withdrawal, as Jon Davis did. This is not the case with the Federal government. I can not simply withdrawal from the jurisdiction of the US government without abdicating my Constitutional protections. I don't begrudge Jon Davis for his withdrawal, he is following his conscience. I don't begrudge the WTPC for not answering his questions to his satisfaction. I think they are doing well. I do wish Devvy, Mike or Bob would start a blog, as I believe one or two posts a month to the website is too infrequent to maintain the kind of commitment and support that this battle will require. Even just one sentence saying something like "today we updated form 1" would be enough to let people know that the battle continues and to hold the line on their front.

Happy Birthday to Joseph Almond.

Posted 12:38 PM by Gerald Klaas
Justice Ginsburg says that our justices, "are becoming more open to comparative and international law perspectives." Since when does that have anything to do with comparing law to the Constitution? I always thought the oath was to uphold the Constitution, not to make sure that our society is molded to conform to some internationally agreed upon ideal proffered by "international law" or treaties.

Posted 9:07 PM by Gerald Klaas
Doug reacted to my comments about his relating to his kin in public:

Gerald Klaas says that some people are afraid of blogging and that is understandable. It is a new thing. So I forgive my family for being afraid to blog. I apologize to my family for trying to communicate with them. I will not try to communicate with them anymore.

So Doug, has anyone ever told you that you show symptoms of borderline personality disorder? Try these on for size:

• Not realize the effects of their behavior on others?
• Believe that others are either completely right or totally wrong?
• Have a hard time recalling someone's love for them when they're not around?
• Alternate between seeing others as completely for them or against them?

Not wanting to blog doesn't mean that they don't want to "communicate" with you, and you making the jump from my suggestion that you recognize that they have the right not to blog to your interpretation, "I will not try to communicate with them anymore", is more than a bit irrational. Maybe it's just your writing style. I hope so, you obviously believe passionately in your causes, and I think your dedication to the blog is contributing to the Tax Honesty movement. Especially with Gene Chapman. I'll be truly impressed when you meet your goal of getting all of the WTP Congress coordinators to use blogs. In the meantime, understand that not wanting to read or answer your blog isn't necessarily a slight to you. People have their own limits, you should accept what they can give graciously, even if it isn't what you hoped for. Just because you don't get 100% of what you want doesn't mean you should turn your back on the 50% that's being offered. I really don't mean this to offend you, it is meant in the spirit of friendship I feel we've built over the last several months, but you might want to look over the BPDcentral.com's indicators page and see if any of it sounds close to home.

By The Way: I like the Gene style financial report. I think you should continue it.

Posted 11:47 AM by Gerald Klaas
Doug, if I were your kin and you chose a public forum to pick a fight and try to badger me into discussing topics I didn't want to discuss in public, I'd refuse to play your game too. In fact, I'd probably delete the blog you set up and tell you to kiss my *ss. Public speaking is the number one phobia in America. Not everyone feels comfortable debating public policy issues in a public forum, and they have as much right to NOT express their opinions as you have a right to express your own. I think you own them an apology, and like good kin, I'm sure they'll forgive you for being such a pain (I'm sure they're used to it).

Now onto Larry Flynt running for governor of California. He probably could do a better job than Davis. He may not have my morals or my respect, but he sure knows how to get publicity. (Hey, that describes Davis too.) What I find interesting is that the fact that the media covers Flynt's candidacy at the expense of covering "real" related issues, like asking the Democratic Party when they'll put up a candidate other than Davis, or covering Richard Riorden, or Peter Camejo, just goes to show that the media is much more interested in the circus than the issues. God help us, we've truly reached the era of "bread and circuses".

Posted 11:57 PM by Gerald Klaas
Doug may be a little surprised by this, but even though I have chastised him for not respecting copyrights, I am totally against the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). The reason has nothing to do with the right of the RIAA to protect its copyrights, the reason is that it changes one class of crime (copyright violations) to be held to a different investigative standard than other crimes, and, I believe, violates the 4th Amendment. In its current fear campaign of issuing mass subpoenas, the RIAA is perfectly demonstrating the problems associated to a weakened 4th Amendment (and the DMCA in particular). The sheer number of subpoenas issued demonstrates that they don't intend to take these people to court, they intend to harass, frighten and gain media attention. (Anyone else see similiarities to the IRS' use of search warrants?) Luckily there is at least one company (akin to Larken Rose and Irwin Schiff) who sees the issue clearly and is choosing to fight back. In an article on Cnet, we see SBC's approach:

Probably the most important argument is one that could hit the RIAA where it hurts the most: in the pocketbook. SBC argues that it and other Internet service providers "must be compensated for the substantial costs incurred in complying with these subpoenas" and cites rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It says the recipient of a subponea must be "reasonably compensated" for the work required to prepare a response.

Go get them SBC. And while you're at it, as a California company, point out to your (and my) Senators (both Boxer and Feinstein voted for DMCA) what they have wrought.

Posted 9:44 PM by Gerald Klaas
I enjoyed camping this weekend near Ice House in the El Dorado National Forest. Every year I meet up with a couple dozen guys, some of whom I've known since first grade, and we go camping deep in the woods where we won't disturb nearby campers. This was the 20th Annual. Since we go at the end of July or early August, it's normally a toasty 85 to 100 degrees in the area. This is the first year it rained on us. We weren't going to let a little rain stop our game of Frisbee golf. I finished at two over par.

Posted 6:58 PM by Gerald Klaas
I just saw a story on KCRA Reports (local TV news) saying that Gray Davis plans to file a case with the California Supreme Court tomorrow asking to allow his name on the ballot among the other candidates to replace him. There is currently speculation that as many as 100 names could be on the ballot to succeed Davis when he is recalled. So far, the Democrats have remained united in refusing to offer a new Party Candidate. If this continues, AND Davis wins his lawsuit, it is at least conceivable that he could be recalled and then succeed himself. It's an interesting thought, the opposition vote is so diluted by the large candidate pool that nobody wins more than 10 or 15 percent of the vote. If Davis is the *only* Democrat on the ballot then there are probably enough Democrats who would refuse to vote outside the party for Davis to be resoundly defeated in the recall, and then succeed himself with 10 to 15 percent of the vote. If this scenario comes to pass, the Democratic Party will have pulled off a major coup on the State at the expense of their party faithful who will once again feel forced to vote for a candidate they dislike. Is it any wonder the level of cynicism rises daily in California politics? There are two possible candidates in the field of 100+ that could rain on the Democrats parade. In my opinion, if Richard Riorden runs, he wins. He is considered a centerist in California, and is well known enough to have name recognition even among the "noise". The trick though is that Simon and Schwarzenegger both have to refuse to run, or step out of the race or risk bleeding Riorden's votes down to the level where Davis could win with 10 to 15 percent of the vote. I think Schwarzenegger will decide not to run, but I think Simon has the ego to stay in even if it means giving the state back to Davis. The second possible candidate to make or break the "DP coup" would be Peter Camejo, the Green Party gubernatorial candidate in 1998. He was pretty popular in 1998 despite being left of left of left, he could easily get the socialist vote, which can sometimes be pretty significant in California and amount to that magic 10 to 15 percent. I first blogged about this on July 1st. Last week, the San Jose Mercury News came to the same conclusion as I did July 1, that absent a Democratic candidate, Camejo could win.