© COPYRIGHT 2004, by NewRuskinCollege.com
New Ruskin College Lecture Hall:
History’s judgment rendered today!
Lecture Notes: 07-23-2004
Earlier in 2003, On the Sean Hannity Show:
Guest: . . . . and you, you also had a run in with the IRS
too didn’t you? I heard they came here to your work ?
Sean Hannity: Yes, they
visited here once.
Guest: See this is what I’m talking about. The IRS
has been singling out conservatives and Republicans, all during the Clinton
Admin. . . . What? Am I not supposed to talk about it? You don’t talk about the IRS?
Sean Hannity: No.
Guest: But you see? This is just my point no one is confronting the
IRS with its abuse.
Sean Hannity: I just don’t talk about it. That’s all. They came here asked to see some papers, records, interviewed some people.
I just don’t talk about it.
Guest: Oh, well, ok, . . .
The reason I organized
the protests in front of KQED, handed out the flyers, wrote the Last Letter,
(see Last Letter Archive), was because I thought that what the San Francisco lefties
had done to me was so wrong, and also so secret, that the two qualities in combination seemed to me an outrage.
The typical visitor to
this website will probably not even have it register in their consciousness that I was “put off,” our “up
set,” or had a “sense of having been wronged.” It’s a website. Or
possibly you will say, “OK, you were torqued. What else is there to see
No, I mean I was really
angry. I was more angry than I had ever been.
And the fact that everyone denied what they had done contributed to my rage.
That they maintained as, Sedge Thomson actually said on his show, “plausible deniability,” was devastating. Marlene and I were seeing Yvonne because a
relationship of 19 years was “troubled.” Months later, after I called
Yvonne and fumed at her, and accused her of betraying Marlene and me, Sedge Thomson
actually went on the air and mused allowed that he supposed that “marriage counseling can bring out a lot of emotions
. . . it can be highly emotive,” he conjectured.
It was months after
Yvonne took Marlene and me to the KQED radio studio, where they put on their little performance for us, that I confronted
Yvonne. It was only after listening to months of double entendres, their coded
messages of contempt, that I finally felt confident of Yvonne’s involvement to confront her. She, of course, denied everything. (Later she would offer
an explanation, see Yvonne’s Story at the Stolen Notebook Archive.)
So, in other words, Sedge
Thomson had had months to consider the situation, had himself, and others also had, made numerous references to what they
had done. They had expressed their continued joy in what they had done. They referenced the pleasure it still gave them to have invaded the life of a conservative
Republican, and interfered with his contract (I do not say relationship) with the counselor.
And yet, not withstanding this extended period of time for reflection and reconsideration Sedge Thomson was saying
that he supposed “marriage counseling can bring out a lot of emotions . . . it can be highly emotive.”
In the face of such heedless
emptiness, a human cruelty that blurs into and seems to become a natural force, a
cruelty that does not seem human because no thought process is discernable, what can a man do?
For two weeks I sat on
my back porch and rocked in my rocking chair. I chain smoked cigarettes, drank
beer. The sun cam up, and I rocked, and I smoked, and the sun reached its zenith,
and I rocked and I smoked and I drank, and it set, and I rocked and I smoked and I drank.
When it got light again, I started rocking again.
I wanted to do something.
And this is the point
I want to make here. At no time since then have I ever thought that anything
could be done to change the situation. I wanted to do something, but I did not
then, nor at any time since then think, that anything would change. I did not
even think that I would live as long as I have since then.
I did not want them to
keep what they had done a secret. I knew that they would deny what they had done,
and would be contemptuous of my efforts to expose them. But I felt it my obligation
to do something, even though I knew that what ever I could do would change nothing.
This is the difference
between me and Sean Hannity. He does not feel an obligation to stand up. He does not want any trouble with the IRS.
I did not know that after
KQED, there would be KGO, KSFO, KNEW, Don Imus, the IRS. Nor did I foresee what they would
do with various employers. I did not foresee this long series of waves of disaster.
I had a right to work
at GAB Robbins without the harassment. I had a right to work for a company, an
honest company, not one that was collecting and distributing kick backs from contractors to insurance company examiners.
I had a right not
to be tormented by Scott Bobro who was given the information from the stolen notebook about the death of my mother. (The material about my mother has not yet been posted in the Stolen Notebook Archive it is still
too personal and the visitor does not yet have a need to know.)
Indeed I had a right not
to have my room burglarized, in the first place, and the stolen notebook given to Michael Weiner to read on the air for a
week before Brian Wilson and Mrs. Jack Swanson started discussing it.
But with all these
rights, (violated rights they may be), I also felt then and now an obligation that, Sean Hannity, for example, does not seem
to accept. With
these rights comes this obligation: to condemn the wrong and uphold the righteous.
Lecture Notes: 07-22-2004
Million Dollar Reward for Mr. Yasin
Some of our visitors, (I
am in particular thinking of our visitors from the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Malaysia, India, the Philippines, Indonesia,
even Israel), may have read here at this website how the IRS asked me to help investigate
Crawford and Company, and then leaked my name not only to my fellow employees at Crawford and Company, but apparently to a
great many others in Washington as well. (see IRS
and the illegals from the North at the Moynihan Memorial Library)
Our visitors may have noted that
my 1998 tax return was audited and that the IRS even filed in Tax Court because they said
my Canadian employer did not use US tax forms even though
my employment was exclusively outside the country and taxes were paid to the Canadian Government. That the IRS dropped the case as soon as I retained counsel, suggests
that the IRS did not itself regard their own position as justified. (In dropping their case the IRS agreed to accept the tax return as filed,
without a single change, and this is also further evidence of the emptiness of their claims.)
Therefore, our foreign friends
may well wonder just how much confidence they can have in the reliability of the United States
when it makes its offer of $5 million for information on the whereabouts of Mr. Yasin? (Reward offer posted below.)
You may well feel that if my case
is any indication of how the IRS deals with people who cooperate with its investigations,
one may well wonder how the U. S. will deal with some one, a foreigner, for example, who is not Western, and possibly involved
in aspects of life of an off color type, even shading into outright criminality?
Can anyone trust the United States of America?
You have to understand that when
Noah Lyle and William Winbush of the IRS’s Criminal Investigation Division in Atlanta
Georgia requested my help in their investigation they probably had already
decided to betray me. They already had a relationship with Crawford. They didn’t
need me. They were just playing. Entertaining
their superiors, possibly even the Clinton Administration. Sport.
Then too, you as foreigners, are
not subject to the same rigid system of classification that orders the lives of we Americans.
The IRS knew that I was in the lower casts and therefore they knew that they would
never be held accountable for their actions. You on the other hand, even if you
have been involved in terrorism are counted to be of a higher status than just an ordinary American schlub like me.
If you have committed crimes,
even acts of terror, fear not, for you will find that the American officials with whom you negotiate, think this something to be winked at not condemned. With their
fellow Americans they can be very strict but among new friends from a far, what are a few bodies? And please
remember, soon you will be a millionaire too, and then no rules at all will be applied.
So, no, what the United
States Government did to me does not indicate how they will treat you. Now if
you were providing information on how wealthy Americans were stealing millions of dollars, if you were trying to report the
misconduct of a Crawford and Company, or for example, a GAB Robbins, then that might be a different story. But as I said different rules apply to millionaires in the United States
Stick to reporting on terrorism,
Clue Number: 9
Scott Bobro’s uncle
is a high official in the union that represents employees of California horse racing tracks. (Scott
Bobro: see Farmers Insurance, see Intel and Psy Ops. (Note: 3 visits last week
Clue Number: 10
Ron Owens is a habitué
of the horse racing tracks. (Ron Owens: see KGO, see Intel and Psy Ops.)
Mr. Yasin, Just Another: “no link” “no direct connection” “no command and control”
“no working relationship” “no collaborative relationship” “no connection” etc. etc. etc.
Abdul Rahman Yasin
Up to $5 Million Reward
|Date of birth:
||April 10, 1960|
|Place of birth:
||Approximately 5'10"(1.75 m)|
||Approximately 180 lbs(81.65 kg)|
||Possible chemical burn on right thigh. Epileptic; takes medication for condition|
||Abdul Rahman Said Yasin, Aboud Yasin, Abdul Rahman S. Taha, Abdul Rahman S. Taher|
Following the New York World Trade Center bombing, law enforcement officials obtained evidence which led to the indictments and arrests of several suspected terrorists involved
in the bombing. ABDUL RAHMAN YASIN, one of those indicted, fled the United States immediately after the bombing to avoid arrest.
YASIN is now a fugitive from justice. YASIN was born in the United States, moved to Iraq during the 1960's, and returned to
the U.S. in the fall of 1992. He possesses a U.S. passport. Because of the nature of the crimes for which he is charged, YASIN
should be considered armed and extremely dangerous.
Indicted for: damage by means of fire or an explosive; damage by means of fire or an explosive to U.S. property; transport
in interstate commerce an explosive; destruction of motor vehicles or motor vehicle facilities; conspiracy to commit offense
or defraud the U.S.; aiding and abetting; penalty of death or life imprisonment when death results; assault of a federal officer
in the line of duty; commission of a crime of violence through the use of a deadly weapon or device.
>A reward of up to $5 million is being offered for information leading to the arrest or conviction of YASIN. If you
have information about YASIN or the World Trade Center bombing, contact authorities or the nearest U.S. Embassy or Consulate.
Lecture Notes: 07-10-2004
Michael Weiner Holocaust
Yesterday, speaking in response to the Lecture Notes of 07-08-04, (the Notes of the 9th having not yet been posted),
Weiner sought to defend his conduct by using the deaths of Jewish children as his justification and excuse.
“Think of those children,” he said, “their lives
were cut short too . . . just because of their race, their ethnicity . . . what
about them, and all the people killed in the Holocaust all of their lives were cut short . . . we do not know what books they
might have written . . . all those children who were killed, we do not know what they might have contributed. . . .”
At the end of the Notes of the 8th I asked: “And why was my life destroyed for writing about these things? Why did they follow me from job to
job? Why did they use the IRS to harasse me? Why send me to Canada? Then cut off my employment? Why?”
And the next day you have The Beast’s answer, because of
the dead Jewish children killed in the Holocaust. Michael Weiner is a Holocaust
For to use the Holocaust to justify misconduct is a denial of
the Holocaust, and of truth, and of justice, of reason itself.
For example, Pat
Buchanan, (who by the way gets along famously with Weiner when they are on the air together), if he should question, for example,
whether the fence at Auschwitz was electrified, some may say he is a Holocaust Denier. However, we can take him to the camp and show him the insulators on the wire where it is attached to the
post. Trace the lines back to the generator.
Then too we have photos of bodies, electrocuted, on the wire. And
then there are the transcripts of the survivor’s testimony, in many volumes,
and other witnesses. If this is denial it is trivial by comparison.
For it can be seen that in order to establish his justification,
his excuse, Michael Weiner would use the deaths of all the victims, men, women, and children, like toilet paper to wipe away
the stains of his own misdeeds. How can anyone in his right mind think to justify
Michael Weiner’s misconduct with the machine gunning of Bluma and Ruth,
who were killed by the 101st Order Battalion in Poland? Michael Weiner’s insanity may be the excuse, in some sense, but legally, morally
we hold him accountable for his words, and should temper only his punishment not our judgment.
If he cared to control himself he could. Often when he did have guests on his show he was careful not to offend, and would grovel like a dog seeking
affection. He knows that using the deaths of Jewish children in the Holocaust
to justify himself is wrong, that it is a sin, but he simply chooses not to restrain himself.
This lack of reason, or restraint, seems to invigorate him. He has stolen,
or used with permission I do not know which, much material from another radio show called “Jew boy Zionist radio.” (The popularity of this show can be guessed by its schedule: one Sunday a month.) Yet Michael Weiner and his colleague are a matched set. They both know that to put the Holocaust to such a mean use is wrong, it is a Denial of the Holocaust,
yet they find mutual support for their outrageous misconduct. There is a solidarity
of the wicked, the vicious, the hateful.
Elsewhere on this website I have mentioned that Yvonne was the
focus of many of those who attacked me. Why?
Because in the Last Letter (and in the demonstrations in front of KQED), I dared to criticize her; I said that her betrayal of her client, me, was wrong.
And Ron Owens, (who Yvonne has said she knew before I met her),
and Michael Krasney, (also of KQED), and the former Mrs. Dr. Dean Edel, and Scott Bobro, and Dean Sodos, and Frank Blaha,
Don Imus, Mrs. Jack Swanson, Brian Susman, Bernie Ward, Rosie Allen, Ed Wygant, Jim Dunbar, the “Red” comedian
of KQED, and Michael Weiner, found it intolerable that I should have criticized
Yvonne is the daughter of Holocaust survivors.
What we see expressed in Michael Weiner is latent in many others. In his confused mind these ideas rise to his consciousness and he has no way of sorting
them out, of applying reason. Yvonne is the daughter of survivors, and so in
his confusion, it brings to mind all the Jewish children killed in the Holocaust. His
egotism over powers his reason, and he uses the dead children to bolster his pride.
An evil so profound I can say no more.
But I can assure you, many others in their hearts, in their judgments,
or lack of moral judgment, in their misjudgments, they also are Holocaust Deniers. They
too would like to shriek into the microphone, ‘we destroyed you because of the Holocaust,’ or they would use whatever other reason that is most flattering to their egos at that moment, to sauvé their
crisis of guilty conscience.
Weiner, I think, is no more despicable simply because that in
his insanity he will say what he and many others think. You are all Holocaust
Deniers if you use the Holocaust in this disgusting way. It is not an excuse,
and only the truly deranged would think so.
“Ethnicity is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” ---
Such is the hold of ethnicity, such is the vanity of the likes
of Ron Owens and Michael Krasney, that even though they too see that this use of the Holocaust is wrong, yet still, just as
Michael Weiner is finally unwilling to restrain himself, they too will not condemn the wrong and uphold the righteous.
Lecture Notes: 07-09-2004 It is lonely being a Republican.
Counselor: Oh, so
how do you feel about that?
Yvonne, please, not now, I’m in the middle of a lecture. See?
Counselor: Oh, yes,
on the internet. You know, maybe you would be happier living with your own kind?
Thank you Yvonne.
It is lonely being a Republican in Marin
County, true. But frankly I do not
think it is much different anywhere else. Dealing with the Republicans is like
dealing with the autistic. There is a failure to connect at some deep fundamental level.
Mr. Jones is running for Senate.
I have printed two pages of his website at the end of this lecture so you can see for yourselves that I am not making
this up. But first what I want you to understand is that he is absolutely representative
of Republicans. This is not an aberration it is utterly typical.
Everyone now agrees that the Administration was delinquent in
its preparations for the Second Gulf War, not militarily, but for . . . what do you call it?
Governance? See, Republicans can not even say the word. They learned from Reagan that “Government is the problem,” and their learning stopped. Why study government? It is “the
problem.” So, therefore, Republicans are at a disadvantage right from the
Then too, they in particular believe in “objectivity.” In this false belief they have been encouraged by the left which has taken control
of the media, academia, the foundations, unions, civil service, large blocks of the elected officialdom, and appointed offices
as well, like, for example, the judiciary, for whom, for all of whom, this simple minded belief in “objectivity” is immensely beneficial. “The experts
say . . .” fill in the blank, and the Republicans will say, ‘oh,
well, if it is objectively so . . .’ But because my fellow conservatives, Republicans, simpletons that they are wander
from one subject to another apparently oblivious to the world in which they live, taking things at their face, objective,
value, after years, the exasperation, the realization of the utter futility of ever being able to communicate with them .
Counselor: Breathe! Deep breath. Deep. Now let it out slowly . . .
Thank you Yvonne.
For example, an elected Republican member of the State Legislature
was interviewed on a local radio show. The gentleman began condemning a hypothetical
Democrat opponent for an unspecified proposal, or possibly it was an actual program already in progress, some scheme to improve
mankind, with which our Republican friend disagreed. A straw man opponent. Then as he warmed to his topic, the radio hosts “umhming” in assent, began
to debate the opponent. Did he point out that it is difficult to know what is
best for others? That it may have unintended consequences? That our taxes are not evenly distributed by the economy but fall on those who are least able to avoid
No. And he could
not argue the merits of the proposal as it had no definable characteristics. It
was an undefined, a generic, government program. So what to do? How then did our elected official debate his straw man Democrat?
He asserted that his opponent “had not been noticeably successful in his own life. How could he come here to Sacramento and tell us what to do,
having been such a failure in his own career?” His preferred method
of argumentation was the smear, even of a straw man.
Note also that the objective standard is provided by the market
economy. The implicit standard is that success in the market is proof of goodness
and wisdom and the reverse is also objectively true for the simpleton Republican. Who
was it that commented that if Napoleon had been as smart as Spinoza, Napoleon would have spent his life in an attic, polishing
lenses and writing philosophy? Not a Republican.
And here you can see the failure of partisan radio. Whole worlds exist, whole universes exist, that can not be examined because they fall outside the shows
“demographic.” If you are trying for the Republican niche market
in the Bay Area you are fighting for a tiny piece of the pie; do you really want to risk alienating a portion of such a small
sliver of the audience?
On the other hand in the dead air of the Republican officials
beseeching smear on his hypothetical Democrat straw man what marvelous opportunities present themselves? What comedy? Humor?
Oh, yes, may the Gods of Comedy not fail me!
“So he is a wastrel then?
Is it . . . (wait for the glimmer of realization in the fools eyes (I am being mocked!)) . . . . do you think . . .
(lower voice, bring the audience up close to their radio speakers) . . . that fellow, your opponent, what do you think it is . . . . . . drugs, sir, or something
But the show’s host can not say anything. The fool goes on thinking he has been a clever fellow, like that Mr. Limbaugh fellow, the king of talk radio. Of course, these sorts of Republicans, like Mr. Limbaugh and this elected official,
cost the Republicans more votes than they bring in. How could this be? Mr. Limbaugh has a huge audience! Why sir it is an objective
Mr. Limbaugh could not get elected even if he wanted to. He does not want to. Never has. His audience is “national.” He
is syndicated. Radio broadcasting today is all about finding a niche. This is why people like Michael Weiner used to call themselves conservative
Republicans: to find a niche. In
no particular market or jurisdiction, does Rush Limbaugh have enough people to qualify for the ballot much less win an election.
Millions tune in for fifteen minutes during the week, but how
many tune out? Or never tune in? Most
people are tuned out. And a great many of them have been turned off. Nasty, self centered, uninformed opinions follow one another in no particular order, with no particular
purpose. Sometimes his callers come to realize his ambivalence, his incomprehension,
as when famously during one call he dismissed the callers inquiry about a bumper sticker, (this is exactly the intellectual
level of the program), by saying “No I did not see that one . . . of course, it is hard to see bumper stickers from
the back of a limousine.” The caller was incensed as were the next
several callers until the order went out to cut the rest. His remark had made
“objective” what his listeners had not previously recognized; Rush
Limbaugh lives in another world and does not have much interest in ours.
He earns his living by yammering on into the microphone, but as
for the actual lives being lived by his audience, let alone by the rest of the people in the country where he is currently
domiciled, he has no personal interest. Taking 80 OxyContin pills a day did not
dull his observations because he already was deeply withdrawn from existence. If his empty derisive words offend, he is indifferent. Not always. Some times he takes positive glee in offending.
In the movie About Schmidt he thought nothing of the fact that
they held him up to the same ridicule to which Mr. Schmidt was subjected. Perhaps
he was unaware how he was made to appear. He is that detached. In the movie he comments on an issue by first establishing his knowledge of it was reached by “watching
some videos.” An expression he often uses in his actual show. Never a book. No never. No guests either. No studies, or research, no interviews, no travels, no investigations, no debates, no classes, not one lecture. His research consists of reading the copy from newspapers. So, no, probably he is unaware that the movie mocked
This is why so many Democrats praise Limbaugh, and complain ‘We
need a Limbaugh on the Left,’ etc. My fellow Republicans take them at there
“objective” word, with something like pride.
‘You really like him?’
‘Oh, yeah, wish we had one just like him.’
The simpletons would never wonder, ‘Are they serious? Are they pulling my leg.’ Yes!
Of course they are mocking you. You fools!
This is why it is so lonely being a Republican and why moving somewhere else would make no difference.
And this, Mr. Limbaugh’s
disastrous effect, outside his little fractional share of the market, his puny piece of America,
is why I have been attacked so vigorously, here in the Bay Area. When they attack
me they are thinking about the likes of Mr. Limbaugh.
Years ago, when I was seeing Yvonne she once asked me, “Do
you like Pelicans?” I thought this might be some sort of verbal Rorschach
Test or possibly like those Zen questions the teachers use to shock the student out of his preconceived ideas to experience
the world without prejudice. Then yesterday, Rush Limbaugh started talking about
Pelicans. His great admiration of them.
His desire to own one. His many hours spent watching them. Then he said, “as I have mentioned before on this program.”
As he mentioned before?
Then it all came to me, Yvonne asked me about Pelicans because I am a conservative and he is a conservative and she
thought it would be amusing . . . Don’t you see? Yvonne never listens to Limbaugh. She must have been talking
to someone about her conservative Republican client. And they must have told
her, ‘Hey, ask him if he likes Pelicans. Rush Limbaugh likes them. See if all conservatives like them.’ Something
But this is just typical of the situation. Limbaugh makes some dismissive, derisive, statement, utterly contemptuous, and this bad faith gets imputed
to all of us conservative Republicans. He has become the mouth piece of the Party. You know that there are people who look at us and what they actually see is Adolph
Hitler. Well some of you know this. My
fellow Republicans do not. It is not “objective.” You see how lonely it is? They do not have a clue what is really
Counselor: Why don’t
you tell them how you answered?
Yvonne, dear, this is not the appropriate time---
Counselor: He said,
“Some of them are friendly.” I kid you no-----
Yvonne, that’s it,
we are finished.
Counselor: What about
your Mr. Jones?
Lecture Notes: 07-08-2004
and the U. S. decline into corruption.
“I’m not one of those who takes pleasure in causing
another man’s suffering.”
--- Michael Weiner, KNEW, 07-08-2004
We can not keep using the word hypocrisy or it will be thought
we only have the one word. I guess I should get out the thesaurus. We need to explore hypocrisy in all of its many shades, way
out to the very edges of rational thought. For there is a limit to hypocrisy,
and reason’s light on this subject. Out in the jet black darkness you will
find the beast itself, the prime mover, the wickedness that has no other explanation than the evil itself. I have always thought it amusing that the only reason O’Reilly
got away with, “who is looking out for you?” instead of Weiner, is probably that Weiner did not think he was capable
of such, such . . . mendacity.
But now here Weiner has gone O’Reilly one better. So that when my father died and as his body awaited burial, Michael Weiner went on his radio program and
read from the stolen notebook, mocking and tormenting me, to be followed the following week by Mrs. Jack Swanson and Brian
Wilson, and Ed Wygant and Jim Dunbar, and later Rosie Allen, all using the stolen notebook to harasse and oppress; but Weiner wants you to think that he took no joy in it?
And all these years since then with Scott Bobro and Dean Sodos
at Farmers, Frank Blaha at GAB, Michael Krasney and the former Mrs. Dr. Dean Edel (Rose Guilbault) at AAA Auto Club, Doug Dery at CenCal Insurance and Mrs. Jack Swanson to whom CenCal published
my letters, Don Imus using his connections, (Shotgun Tom Kelly), to harasse me at State Farm, and when I could find no other
employment Ron Owens used his influence with that children’s clothing designer at Gymboree to get me fired, but not
before he got his homosexual friend to harasse me at the health club; and all
those years before, Cliff Mote the good old boy from Pascagoula Mississippi and his friend Gene Howard at the Portland Maine
claims office of Crawford, using the information leaked to them by the IRS Criminal Investigation
office of Atlanta, to harasse and torment; and then later the entire weight of
the federal government taking a case to Tax Court, (a $20,000 (US) case), for
the sole reason that U. S. tax forms were not used by my Canadian employer for employment which was entirely in Canada; and
all of this . . . why?
Senator Dodd: "You know Don I
support Albert Gore. I really do. I don’t have to . . . they do not have that much on me. . . so I don’t
have to support him . . . but I do.
Imus: . . . ah, so you say you . . . you say they don’t have that much
on you Senator?
Senator Dodd: That’s right
Don, they don’t have that much on me, so I don’t have to support
them but I do.” --- Senator Dodd
During the week, 6-26 to 7-02-2004, the domain, IRS.com, sent 5
visitors to New Ruskin College. That same week the domain, USDOJ.gov, sent 6 visitors, and the USCourts.gov sent 3
visitors. The prior week, 6-19 to 6-25-2004, IRS.com sent 1visitor, USDOJ.gov 2 visitors, and the USCourts.gov sent 3 visitors. Why?
Am I entertaining you?
Or were you all just checking to see if I am still alive.
I wrote in 1995, “ It now appears that many Canadian adjusters are involved in a systematic program of kick backs
and operate through [deletion] and Crawford along with American employees to obtain claim files and refer these files to their
This is only the tip of the iceberg. Below the surface there is the vast extent unseen.
How comes it that I found employment in Canada? How is it that the only employer I could find was calling me? From Canada? How is it that the only tax audit, the only tax case to go to Tax Court, in my entire life, for an amount
of $20,000 (US), gross, should have gone to Tax Court, on the single issue of ‘why my Canadian employer did not use
U. S. Tax Forms, for employment exclusively in Canada?’ And that, sole,
single, puny issue was dropped as soon as I retained counsel? How is that? How is that?
How is that?
When Yvonne betrayed Marlene and me and took us to the KQED studio
so many years ago, one of the most belligerent, despicable, performers, who would want to be named, continued for months afterwards
to drop innuendos, hints, little coded messages during his appearances. I tried
several times to talk to Yvonne about what had happened, about these references, but she declined to discuss it. (She appears to have related my suspicions which only caused a redoubling of the “messages.”) Recently this same performer appeared on the cover of USA Today. The subject of the article was that he had finally paid the $80,000 owed to the U. S. Not the tax on an $80,000 income but a tax of that amount, that had been unpaid, for years.
This performer, who is proud of being “red” like so
many others on the left cheated the taxman not with standing his “commitment” to social programs and logically
the taxes needed to carry out the schemes to improve mankind. (See Paul Johnson on this subject.)
Part of his justification for persuading Yvonne to betray her
clients, his reason, was “the cause”, their commitment to social
justice. (Oh, yes it is rich.) I
had written letters to the Senate supporting a Republican President and conservative issues, I had advocated war over peace,
and he and his San Francisco friends, wanted to “get even.” They wanted to harm. And they were successful.
But I have gone on longer than I meant to. I have some time perhaps, we can continue this later. There
is much more that needs saying. Though I may not be the one saying it.
Do you not suppose that Rosie Allen heard about the People’s
Temple before it made the front pages? Don’t
you think that Bernie Ward came back from some meeting or demonstration and mentioned seeing a People’s Temple
member getting beaten by the People’s Temple guards? Why did Mrs. Jack Swanson boast about being vicious and now complains she has been misunderstood? Why did
Michael Weiner use electronic listening devises at my storage space to spy on me? What
did he do to Duane Garrett?
Is it just coincidence that the Insurance Commissioner does not
audit claims files? How is it that millionaires on the Gulf
Coast get subsidized flood insurance? Chance? Why are the emergency rooms closing; where does all the insurance money go? Why did the IRS
leak my name to the Crawford employees? Why was I sent to Canada
and that years tax return taken to Tax Court? Then dropped?
Why did the San Rafael Police use the code “Colonial Motel
Suspect” and then in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by my attorney deny any information?
Then too, deep in the dark cold water, hidden from view are all
the more general questions. Questions about how taxes are distributed by the
economy, shunted by the powerful, onto the poor. Questions about why efficiency
in education, medicine, housing is so low? Is it coincidence that these three
areas are under such tight government control? Is it coincidence that these are
the three leaders in inflation?
For example, why were laser disks ignored. When they were needed in Eastern Europe, in Iraq,
Mexico, all over the world, filled with young people who want
to learn, we fail to use our technology to help them. We could make a profit
on the sale. We would profit by having a world with young educated people. And our own children. Half the high schools
do not even offer a class in physics.
And why was my life destroyed for writing about these things?
Why did they follow me from job to job? Why did they use the IRS
to harasse me? Why send me to Canada? Then cut off my employment? Why?
Maybe we can talk later I am tired now.
During the Math Project, at one point I proposed that we issue
bonds to raise the capital to manufacture the laser disks. I allowed that the
bonds would be repaid with interest but I asked for a below market rate of interest, 3% as I recall.
Senator Moynihan appeared on the Senate floor after that letter
and reminded his colleagues that when the state of New York was building the Erie Canal, the government had assisted with
bonds, however, he noted, those bonds were at “market rates, sirs, market
rates, no one gave New York any breaks when we were building the Erie Canal, we paid full market rates.” Don’t
you miss him?
Lecture Notes: 07-07-04
“We should ask if these political labels, like liberal and
conservative, that come to us from the Nineteenth Century apply to us today ? . . . post liberal . . .may be more honest.”
---- Guest on Radio Factor, 07-07-04 ( see Lecture Notes:
see? Someone is reading you. And
willing to go up against Bill O’Reilly. You know O’Reilly is a powerful
man. That guest may have put his career at risk tweaking him like that. And remember
Jerry Brown. What did he say?
“ . . . there is a corruption that sometimes enters our public discourse
. . .”
-------- Jerry Brown, on the Bill O’Reilly radio show, 06-07-04 (Jerry Brown, Mayor of Oakland, former Governor, Secretary of State, and
a Green Gulch Farm trained meditater.(see Lecture Notes: 06-07-04))
Counselor: And Glenn Beck?
He mentioned Valley
he also mentioned kaleidoscopes.
Counselor: And applying the market to the highways. (see Army Navy Club
Item No. 24 Virtual Quarantine: Rolling Checkpoints)
Senator Moynihan would be so pleased; he changed the title of the highway bill to Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act. He used to talk about the roads as a “public good” meaning a
government owned product or service which, because the government owned it, no one owned it, and this was the cause of the
inefficiencies that we see in ----
Counselor: Yes, well there you see people are reading you.
Counselor: Oh, you would rather mope about feeling ---
Yvonne, sshh, you aren’t suppose to talk . . . you know . . .?
Counselor: Ah! Your audience. So are they here? There you see?
Lecture Notes: 07-04-04 ‘I only did this much.’
Do you suppose that our elite has just one way to destroy a man? I testify that they have many sticks in their bundle. For example, they had the IRS.
(see The IRS and the illegals from the North, at the Moynihan.) But do not think that it was just this. Do you suppose it
is just one thing that destroys a man? It was not just that Yvonne betrayed her
client. Not just Marlene. Not just
that my sister chose to let our parents go to their graves in ignorance of the truth.
(That my brother kept the few dollars our father left me, is an irrelevance.) That Sedge Thompson and his guest David Steindl-Rast lied and used their position
to deceive 12 years ago, by itself, is of no importance. It is the tide of wrongs that destroys. Michael Weiner is by himself a fool, a nonentity, utterly without importance. It was just one burglary. But even ants can, in combination,
devour a man. Michael Krasney, Don
Imus, Ron Owens, Mrs. Jack Swanson, Brian Wilson, etc., etc. each take their kick, and it is the accumulation of their kicks
over decades that destroys and brings to ruin. And each says, ‘I only did
Lecture Notes: 07-01-04 Bad Boy, Bad boy . . .
Uh-oh Michael Weiner.
Guess who just visited? The DOJ.gov.
That would be the Department of Justice. Three times. Oh, yeah. And several law firms too.
Official Notice of the Ludi Magistor:
NewRuskinCollege.com invites attorney's offers of representation.
The Department of ffffing Justice, Michael Weiner. So, how many people did you tell about your burglary of the Colonial Motel?
Do you remember? Let’s see . . . there
was Mrs. Jack Swanson and Brian Wilson the Monday following the burglary. Senator
Dodd. Don Imus. Who else did you
tell? Who did they tell? Has DOJ
visited the San Rafael Police yet?
Hear that? The drums. Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water?
They are coming for you Michael Weiner. They are coming for you, . . . what are you going to do? Bad
boy, Bad boy.
You know who else visited yesterday? Soros.com. Two times.
Why do you think you have made so many enemies? Got any idea? Uh-oh. Michael Savage, it has taken, . . . how long? 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004. The wheels of justice . . . they turn slowly . . .
What you going to do? Bad
boy, Bad boy. . . What you going to do when they come for you? . . . when they come for you?