New Ruskin
Lecture Notes: July '04
Catalog of Courses
Intel Operations:
Psy Ops
Lecture Hall
Lecture Notes 2016
Lecture Notes 2015
Lecture Notes 2014
Lecture Notes 2013
Lecture Notes 2012
Lecture Notes: July 2008 - June 2010
Lecture Notes: May 07 - June 08
Lecture Notes: Oct. '05- April '07
Lecture Notes: September '05
Lecture Notes: August '05
Lecture Notes: July '05
Lecture Notes: June '05
Lecture Notes: May '05
Lecture Notes: April '05
Lecture Notes: March '05
Lecture Notes: January & February '05
Lecture Notes: December '04
Lecture Notes: November '04
Lecture Notes: October '04
Lecture Notes: September '04
Lecture Notes: August '04
Lecture Notes: July '04
Lecture Notes: June '04
Lecture Notes: May '04
Lecture Notes: April '04
Imus Protests April 2004
Last Will & Testament
Funeral Procession
Baghdad Claims Office: How I would settle Iraqi Prisoner Claims.
Top 40
Metaphysics 303
Who Killed Duane Garrett: Part II
This is what is Wrong with the Republican Party. Part I & Part II
A Public Letter to Rosie Allen
A Public Appeal to Governor Davis
How Don and Mike Removed the Evil One From MSNBC
Who Killed Duane Garrett? 3 Suspects: Motive Greed & Power
McGurk Tutorial
45 minutes and the Distortions of History
Don Imus Says Good Morning
Judgment Day

© COPYRIGHT 2004, by

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 here?”


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    

5 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 of America. 


Stick to reporting on terrorism, its safer.   





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 from


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: Bloomington, Indiana
Height: Approximately 5'10"(1.75 m)
Weight: Approximately 180 lbs(81.65 kg)
Hair: Black
Eyes: Brown
Complexion: Olive
Sex: Male
Nationality: American
Characteristics: Possible chemical burn on right thigh. Epileptic; takes medication for condition
Aliases: Abdul Rahman Said Yasin, Aboud Yasin, Abdul Rahman S. Taha, Abdul Rahman S. Taher
Build: Unknown

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.

Photo of Yasin


Lecture Notes:  07-10-2004 

Michael Weiner Holocaust Denier.


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 Denier.


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.  Why?


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.” --- Christopher Matthews


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.


Counselor:  You’re welcome.


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 start. 


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.


Counselor:  You’re welcome.


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 them? 


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 else?”    


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 fact. 


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 him.


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 like that. 


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 going on. 


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?


That’s it.






Lecture Notes:  07-08-2004  

The IRS 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,, sent  5 visitors to New Ruskin College.  That same week the domain,, sent 6 visitors, and the sent 3 visitors.  The prior week, 6-19 to 6-25-2004, sent 1visitor, 2 visitors, and the 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 fellow conspirators.”


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:  06-26-04) 


Gotya !


Counselor:  Well, 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 Forge, and 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 this much.’   




Lecture Notes:  07-01-04  Bad Boy, Bad boy . . .


Uh-oh Michael Weiner.   Guess who just visited?  The  That would be the Department of Justice.  Three times.  Oh, yeah.  And several law firms too.


Official Notice of the Ludi Magistor: 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?  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?



(see paper no. 1948. Edward L. Glaeser and Joseph Gyourko  The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability    )