IRS DESTROYS I&O PUBLISHING COMPANY
Mark Hamilton
IRS DESTROYS I&O PUBLISHING COMPANY
The Power of Principle against the IRS and its Pips
A Completely Separate Entity (KOAH) wrote:
>Benjamin Hartwick was the employee who dared to question Wally
>about the blatant dishonesty in the company's advertising. He and
>another employee, Matthew, lived in an apartment they rented from
>the company. One day, Wally got fed-up with his honesty being
>questioned, and fired both of them. He kicked them out of the
>apartment that day...
[snip]
>Neo-Tech is an authoritarian personality cult. It was designed that
>way by Wally himself.
[snip]
KOAH "responded":
>This is a very common cult technique. The hapless dupe ends up
>totally dependent on the cult for shelter and income and then the cult
>leader tightens the screws.
[snip]
The night of November 3, 1986, after being raided all day long at two
locations by at least 22 IRS agents, my father Wallace Ward (aka Dr.
Frank R. Wallace), my brother Frank Ward (aka Eric Savage), and
myself (Wallace H. Ward, aka Mark Hamilton) had a gut-wrenching
decision to make: do we stand on principle against the evil IRS -- the
nest of the entire ruling class -- or do we just go along like everyone
else and settle. To not cooperate and instead stand up would turn this
whole thing into a much more intense political issue and expose us to a
lot more danger. That decision would affect the rest of our lives.
That
night, we chose the much more difficult challenge from which we have
never stepped back from: to stand on principle.
Of course, that put our family under enormous pressure, particularly
Wallace Ward. Over the next ten years, the impact of our fight in
silence altered the direction of the IRS's power. First, for the
record,
we overturned two federal rulings in the Federal Appellate Courts,
doing this whole thing pro se (with our brilliant legal counsel).
Moreover, we reached the Supreme Court when the Solicitor General
of the United States appealed one of those rulings. But, the Solicitor
General abandoned his appeal because he could not prevail. For some
time now, the top brass of the IRS in Washington DC has dealt with
our case. And the Honesty Oath is now the law of the land, per ruling
by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (a 2 - 1 decision). Realize that,
similar to a new technology that is often created well before businesses
know how to effectively apply it to change the world, the Honesty Oath
will change law as we know it once lawyers learn how to effectively
use it.
The persistent pressure and strategic propaganda injected into the
government by my father's trials, his motions and other writings seeded
throughout Congress and the Courts, and his strategic information-
seeding and silent in-roads to politicians is behind the inevitable,
wonderful IRS changes that are now bouncing throughout Congress
and future political campaigns. The IRS is going to change, and a lot
of credit goes to Wallace Ward.
That's the way sweeping changes come about -- by some intense yet
little-heard lone battles, usually writers via intense behind-the-scenes
literary fighting, breaking apart traditions and the status quo. The
world knows not of the enormous energy behind my father's trials and
related motions, pamphlets, and seedings. But the world is a better
place. Thank God for people like him who had the ability, courage,
and energy to do what he did! (By the way, the IRS is your nest too,
KOAH. Without it, there would be no government checks for people
like you.)
Now, that being said, I will devalue this post to answer KOAH's entire,
ostensible basis for attacking Wallace Ward. KOAH cries: Wallace
Ward is a guru and Neo-Tech Publishing is a cult! Most of his
"sources", "references", and "examples" (all out of context, of course)
come from a handful of ex-employees...one in particular who feeds
KOAH information for his "A Completely Separate Entity" posts.
Those few employees, all of whom we fired or encouraged to leave,
worked for us when our small company was in a war for our very
survival against the power of that horrifying monster called the IRS.
The people we are gathering on the IRS class-action suit know what
kind of unbelievable pressure that war can be. But no one else has a
clue (especially someone like KOAH who gets his living from the blood
money gathered by the IRS). The pressure is mind-boggling. And the
pressure is multiplied by trying to hold the pieces together for your
family and your business. I will not attempt to capture the pressure in
words -- I cannot.
It was our family and our publishing company against the IRS. Not as
tax "cheats", for if we were tax "cheats" as KOAH says, we would have
chosen a much less painful approach for settling. You have to
understand, standing up meant not cooperating, which intensifies
criminal exposure. But we challenged the might of the IRS completely.
And the pressure mounted like you could not imagine. Under that
pressure, we had little tolerance for problem people working for us.
(By the way, we made every effort to insulate our employees from the
pressures of our war. In doing so, a couple of immature cancer seeds
like Benjamin Hartwick and KOAH's "ACSE" source took advantage
of our situation and played up the "us against the Wards" card as does
KOAH. Such whining did not sit well with us Wards, especially since
we were the ones carrying all the pressure and admirably keeping it to
ourselves so the employees could work in relative peace.)
Today a lot of the war is over. We won. The IRS will not go on much
longer in its current state. In the next few years, perhaps around the
year 2000, we will see the tax system revamped for the better. I know
and my family knows the key role we played in this inevitable change,
particularly my father. People in Washington DC know this. My father
is quite famous among Congress and most respected. Senators and
Congressmen come up to our lawyer at important functions and tell
him if there is anything Wallace Ward needs, just call them. Ironic,
isn't
it!
KOAH, our effect out there is huge. I just gave you one example in
our war against the IRS and the outcome. But we are doing huge
things in several areas. You do not hear about us because we are
writers using unprecedented in-roads, doing much of our work quietly,
but effectively.
Go ahead now, KOAH the dishonesty machine. Do your attack thing!
Bottom line is, we are happy. We are winners, big winners. And the
effort is just beginning to get traction! The hugest Neo-Tech
advancement of all is already demonstrated as financially sound in
extensive testing. With that, we are about to roll forward on...oh,
KOAH, I'll save it for someone else in some other post. Yeah, great
days...ah, really great days are here.
Mark Hamilton
President
Neo-Tech Publishing Company
http://www.neo-tech.com
M Simon
Please explain what you have done to the IRS. I know changes are
in the wind. What is the Oath?
Simon
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamilton <nov...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In the end people get the government they deserve.
Read "The Weapon Shops of Isher" by A.E. vanVogt
Simon
Matt Keys
Joseph G. Adams (jga...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: In article <58qmib$9...@kirin.wwa.com>, M Simon <msi...@rworld.com> wrote:
: >Please explain what you have done to the IRS.
: They've done nothing, aside from threatening to file a lawsuit. When
: people asked them when they planned to do it, no answer.
: For more on Neo-tech, see:
: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2278/
: --
: Joseph G. Adams
: Stanford Law School, 3L
: http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jgadams/
Giants versus Twerps
Who knows the fierce battle it takes to start from nothing except
an idea, and from that idea to build livelihoods, values, jobs,
and prosperity for entire populations?
Jay Gould knew, Henry Ford knew, Leona Helmsley knew, Michael
Milken knew along with too many other unsung giants. Indeed, each
were attacked in a thousand ways by countless twerps, pips,
ex-beneficiaries, fired employees, professional value destroyers,
government bureaucrats, parasitical elites, ego
prosecutors/judges, and demagogic politicians.
Those entrepreneurs knew about fighting day and night, year after
year to build job-creating businesses that deliver competitive
values to society -- values that advance civilization. Such
business people tragically must consume irreplaceable chunks of
their precious lives in throwing off envious sloths and do-nothing
nonentities who constantly try to drain them and diminish the
values they produce for society.
Only those precious few entrepreneurs know the fierce struggle
required to competitively succeed where countless others fail.
Only they have the toughness to battle nonstop in solving and
overcoming the never ending flood of life-or-death survival
problems. They can never "go home" after work to entertainment or
diversions. They can never kick back in the evenings, on weekends,
or on vacations. They can never leave their work or
responsibilities. ...Such people do not collect paychecks from
others. They create the paychecks that others live on. Such is
their responsibility. They work to solve problems that do exist,
not to create problems that do not exist.
In a week or even a day, the entrepreneur business builder can
face and must solve more survival problems than most people face
in a lifetime. Any one of those countless problems can be taken
out of context by a malicious value destroyer ranging from a fired
ex-employee trying to financially shake down his ex-employer to a
nihilistic pip trying to pump up his shrunken self-worth.
What kind of people dishonestly, enviously, maliciously attack the
good? What kind of people feel, think, and act in such purposely
destructive ways? In Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, and
Hitler's Germany, how many millions of value producers met their
deaths because of such envy-shriveled pips. In America, today,
countless pips stand ready to destroy heroic, competitive
value-and-job producers through jail or death as a police state of
armed bureaucrats arises -- a police state arising today from the
self-aggrandizing agendas of criminal-minded politicians and
dishonest journalists.
Many pips collect paychecks from tax-funded sources, from
tenured-academe positions, from statist-establishment positions,
or from companies they hate. Indeed, such pips lack the courage,
discipline, and effort to profitably build competitive values for
themselves, others, and society. Instead, they expose their
essence by attacking objective values produced by others while
making problems where none exist. Various examples of such pips
are provided in the forthcoming book Flame-War Justice from
Neo-Tech Worldwide.
In any case, such pips and nihilists have no understanding of what
it takes to start, build, and run competitive businesses that
ultimately provide the livelihoods and well beings for them and
everyone else on Earth. And, who else besides such value
destroyers has the time or inclination to pip -- to ego pump by
purposely dragging down successes and values created by others?
...Neo-Tech stands alone in protecting value-and-job producers
from intentional value destroyers.
--
Matt Keys
M Simon (msi...@rworld.com) wrote:
: Please explain what you have done to the IRS. I know changes are
For a list of IRS Abuse reports, see:
http://www.neo-tech.com/irs-class-action/
the Honesty Oath is explained at:
http://www.neo-tech.com/irs-class-action/book/chapter3.html
Matt.
--
M Simon
After seeing Matt Keys' reply, I'm sorry I asked.
Simon
-----------------------------------------------------------------
jga...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Joseph G. Adams) wrote:
>In article <58qmib$9...@kirin.wwa.com>, M Simon <msi...@rworld.com> wrote:
>>Please explain what you have done to the IRS.
>They've done nothing, aside from threatening to file a lawsuit. When
>people asked them when they planned to do it, no answer.
>For more on Neo-tech, see:
> http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2278/
>--
>Joseph G. Adams
>Stanford Law School, 3L
>http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jgadams/
In the end people get the government they deserve.
M Simon
Call me lazy. Or just put it down to being unable to handle
reams of turgid pointless prose .
In two or three sentences of not more than 100 words each please
explain the oath and any other reforms you have managed.
Simon
------------------------------------------------------------
matt...@netcom.com (Matt Keys) wrote:
>http://www.neo-tech.com/irs-class-action/
>http://www.neo-tech.com/irs-class-action/book/chapter3.html
>Matt.
>--
Nicholas Rich
In article <58rq4n$9...@kirin.wwa.com>, msi...@rworld.com (M Simon) wrote:
>Call me lazy. Or just put it down to being unable to handle
>reams of turgid pointless prose .
>
>In two or three sentences of not more than 100 words each please
>explain the oath and any other reforms you have managed.
What's he, your maid?
Go away.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nicholas Rich Sachs, Savage & Noble http://www.ss-n.com
nr...@ss-n.com Debt Reduction Professionals a...@ss-n.com
We reduce business debt at light speed: invoices; disputes; lawsuits
judgments; problem cash-flow; voluntary debt or company liquidation
without Bankruptcy; all "out-of-court" and always *results-only* fees.
Earn substantial referral fees . http://www.ss-n.com/referral.htm
(Free) Become an affiliate and earn 6 figures working from home.
Other opportunities available as well . http://www.ss-n.com/wanted.htm
M Simon
I'll accept your explanation if you have one.
Simon
---------------------------------------------
nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
>Go away.
In the end people get the government they deserve.
claude jeruchim
Joseph G. Adams (jga...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: Mark Hamilton <nov...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: >The night of November 3, 1986, after being raided all day long at two
: >locations by at least 22 IRS agents, my father Wallace Ward (aka Dr.
: >Frank R. Wallace), my brother Frank Ward (aka Eric Savage), and
: >myself (Wallace H. Ward, aka Mark Hamilton) had a gut-wrenching
: >decision to make:
: Why does everyone in your family get two names?
All SORTS of amazing things can happen when you exert Neo-Tech.
Cj
: --
: Joseph G. Adams
: Stanford Law School, 3L
: http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jgadams/
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claude A. Jeruchim c...@dmatrix.com
"Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing."
claude jeruchim
M Simon (msi...@rworld.com) wrote:
: After seeing Matt Keys' reply, I'm sorry I asked.
: Simon
Why?? Too lazy to use a web browser?
What gives?
CJ
: -----------------------------------------------------------------
: jga...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Joseph G. Adams) wrote:
: >In article <58qmib$9...@kirin.wwa.com>, M Simon <msi...@rworld.com> wrote:
: >>Please explain what you have done to the IRS.
: >They've done nothing, aside from threatening to file a lawsuit. When
: >people asked them when they planned to do it, no answer.
: >For more on Neo-tech, see:
: > http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2278/
: >--
: >Joseph G. Adams
: >Stanford Law School, 3L
: >http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jgadams/
: In the end people get the government they deserve.
: Read "The Weapon Shops of Isher" by A.E. vanVogt
: Simon
claude jeruchim
M Simon (msi...@rworld.com) wrote:
: Call me lazy. Or just put it down to being unable to handle
: reams of turgid pointless prose .
Ok, you're lazy.
: In two or three sentences of not more than 100 words each please
: explain the oath and any other reforms you have managed.
: Simon
he gave you the URL, now stop being a pest. Cj
: ------------------------------------------------------------
: matt...@netcom.com (Matt Keys) wrote:
: >M Simon (msi...@rworld.com) wrote:
: >: Please explain what you have done to the IRS. I know changes are
: >For a list of IRS Abuse reports, see:
: >http://www.neo-tech.com/irs-class-action/
: >the Honesty Oath is explained at:
: >http://www.neo-tech.com/irs-class-action/book/chapter3.html
: >Matt.
: >--
: In the end people get the government they deserve.
: Read "The Weapon Shops of Isher" by A.E. vanVogt
: Simon
claude jeruchim
M Simon (msi...@rworld.com) wrote:
: Please explain what you have done to the IRS. I know changes are
: in the wind. What is the Oath?
something like "Do you affirm to speak with fully integrated honesty,
wholly with fully integrated honesty, and nothing but fully integrated
honesty?"
CJ
: Simon
: ---------------------------------------------------------------
: Mark Hamilton <nov...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: Simon
Dan Evans
>my father Wallace Ward (aka Dr.
>Frank R. Wallace), my brother Frank Ward (aka Eric Savage), and
>myself (Wallace H. Ward, aka Mark Hamilton)
Why do the leaders of "fully integrated honesty" require aliases?
Who are you trying to deceive? And why?
Dan Evans ************************
http://www.netaxs.com/~evansdb
This is not a legal opinion unless
you agreed to pay for it.
**********************************
Dan Evans
>The night of November 3, 1986, after being raided all day long at two
>locations by at least 22 IRS agents, my father Wallace Ward (aka Dr.
>Frank R. Wallace), my brother Frank Ward (aka Eric Savage), and
>myself (Wallace H. Ward, aka Mark Hamilton) had a gut-wrenching
>decision to make: do we stand on principle against the evil IRS -- the
>nest of the entire ruling class -- or do we just go along like everyone
>else and settle.
>First, for the record,
>we overturned two federal rulings in the Federal Appellate Courts,
>doing this whole thing pro se (with our brilliant legal counsel).
You don't see many pro se litigants with legal counsel.
>Today a lot of the war is over. We won.
I'm not sure what you mean by "won." According to the published
memorandum decision of the Tax Court, the deficiencies assessed by
the IRS was upheld, along with the penalties for fraud and intentional
disregard of rules and regulations. And the decision refers to the fact
that Wallace Ward was convicted of criminal tax fraud. Ward v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1995-286.
I am sure that everyone will appreciate how appropriate it is for the
leader of "fully integrated honesty" to be convicted of fraud.
Giovanni 8
> In article <58qtp6$b...@cardinal1.Stanford.EDU>,>> Mark Hamilton <nov...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> The night of [1986-11-03], after being raided all day long at two
>> Frank R. Wallace), my brother Frank Ward (aka Eric Savage), and
>> myself (Wallace H. Ward, aka Mark Hamilton) had a gut-wrenching
>> decision to make:
> Why does everyone in your family get two names?
I counted at least 4 for each, and 5 for some, though they may
have more he didn't mention.
Why? Because everyone has a right to be let alone.
jgo
Julia R. Cochrane
jga...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Joseph G. Adams) writes:
>Mark Hamilton <nov...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>The night of November 3, 1986, after being raided all day long at two
>>locations by at least 22 IRS agents, my father Wallace Ward (aka Dr.
>>Frank R. Wallace), my brother Frank Ward (aka Eric Savage), and
>>myself (Wallace H. Ward, aka Mark Hamilton) had a gut-wrenching
>>decision to make:
>Why does everyone in your family get two names?
Whatever NeoTech is or isn't (I don't have time to fool with it),
the younger Wallace Ward (Mark Hamilton) is being upfront about
who he is and claims to be a writer. "Mark Hamilton" is clearly
more euphonious than "Wallace Ward" and it's pretty common for
writers to take pen names.
Whether NeoTech is the next great truth revealed or a bunch of
hooey spun to reel in the gullible, there's nothing wrong with
using a pen name or other pseudonym if you're in the entertainment
business or write or are otherwise using the name like a business
uses a DBA name or a trademark, as long as you aren't trying to
conceal who you are.
Who thinks "Madonna" is the name she was born with, for example?
Doesn't everybody know who "Cher" is?
I think his upfront acknowledgement that "Mark Hamilton" is a
pseudonym is enough. You seem to be implying sleeze based on it.
Maybe he is a sleeze, maybe not, but a truth isn't helped by
trying to support it with a bad argument.
(Rant off. Sorry. Pet Peeve.)
Julie
>--
>Joseph G. Adams
>Stanford Law School, 3L
>http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jgadams/
--
I can see you crying for the children of the flame; I can feel you comforting
their fears from the dread, unspeakable name; I can hear you screaming out
the truth saying children, come be free; I can hear tears in the wind.
Julia R. Cochrane
eva...@netaxs.com@netaxs.com (Dan Evans) writes:
>In <32B0D1...@ix.netcom.com>, Mark Hamilton <nov...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>>my father Wallace Ward (aka Dr.
>>Frank R. Wallace), my brother Frank Ward (aka Eric Savage), and
>>myself (Wallace H. Ward, aka Mark Hamilton)
>Why do the leaders of "fully integrated honesty" require aliases?
>Who are you trying to deceive? And why?
Obviously he's not trying to decieve anyone, at least not here.
Ever heard of a pen name?
I don't know if this guy's a sleaze or a saint, but "Mark Hamilton"
just sounds prettier than "Wallace Ward". The guy claims to be a
writer. If *my* name was "Wallace Ward" I sure as hell would pick
a pen name if I wanted to write. It's reason enough on it's face.
In fact, all the names are kind of geeky and plenty of reason to
use a pen name or trade name.
Bad arguments used to support a truth often do the truth more harm
than good.
Trying to imply something sleazy about an acknowledged pseudonym
is a bad argument, and not in real great taste. Substance would
be more effective.
Geez, some professional writers have a string of pseudonyms as
long as your arm. If you're going to write for a living, you're
not going to write mystery novels under the same name you use
to write columns of auto repair advice. Writers that write in
multiple categories routinely use a different pen name for each
category. Nothing dishonest about it. It's just marketing.
Corporate persons (ie--under the legal fiction of corporate
personhood) routinely use a different name for different businesses.
It's carried on the papers as "Joe Schmoe Food Service, Inc. DBA
Joe's Eats." Do you think "Hard Rock Cafe" and "Planet Hollywood"
are really the names of the corporations that run those enterprises?
Go look 'em up. Nothing dishonest about it.
Julie
>Dan Evans ************************
>http://www.netaxs.com/~evansdb
>This is not a legal opinion unless
>you agreed to pay for it.
>**********************************
--
Dan Evans
In <596e1e$f...@acmex.gatech.edu>, jb...@prism.gatech.edu (Julia R. Cochrane) writes:
>eva...@netaxs.com@netaxs.com (Dan Evans) writes:
>
>>In <32B0D1...@ix.netcom.com>, Mark Hamilton <nov...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>>>Frank R. Wallace), my brother Frank Ward (aka Eric Savage), and
>>>myself (Wallace H. Ward, aka Mark Hamilton)
>
>>Who are you trying to deceive? And why?
>
>Obviously he's not trying to decieve anyone, at least not here.
>
>Ever heard of a pen name?
Yes, but most people don't use "pen names" in disputes with the
IRS, which is what this post is about.
>Trying to imply something sleazy about an acknowledged pseudonym
>is a bad argument, and not in real great taste. Substance would
>be more effective.
In that case, I will look forward to your comments on the conviction
of Wallace Ward for tax fraud.
China Direct
Wow, Joe, you've really lost your integrity. Your post below is so out
of context it's just plain dishonest. ...One more soul is lost to the
anti-civilization.
Joseph G. Adams wrote:
>
> Julia R. Cochrane <jb...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
>
> >jga...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Joseph G. Adams) writes:
> >
> >>Mark Hamilton <nov...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>The night of November 3, 1986, after being raided all day long at two
> >>>locations by at least 22 IRS agents, my father Wallace Ward (aka Dr.
> >>>Frank R. Wallace), my brother Frank Ward (aka Eric Savage), and
> >>>myself (Wallace H. Ward, aka Mark Hamilton) had a gut-wrenching
> >>>decision to make:
> >
> >>Why does everyone in your family get two names?
> >
> >Whatever NeoTech is or isn't (I don't have time to fool with it),
> >the younger Wallace Ward (Mark Hamilton) is being upfront about
> >who he is and claims to be a writer. "Mark Hamilton" is clearly
> >more euphonious than "Wallace Ward" and it's pretty common for
> >writers to take pen names.
>
> Yes, but usually only when they want to distance themselves from the
> work done under the pen name, either because it's different than
> what they've done before or because they'd prefer to remain
> anonymous. Openly using two names without reason is kinda weird.
>
> >Whether NeoTech is the next great truth revealed or a bunch of
> >hooey spun to reel in the gullible, there's nothing wrong with
> >using a pen name or other pseudonym if you're in the entertainment
> >business or write or are otherwise using the name like a business
> >uses a DBA name or a trademark, as long as you aren't trying to
> >conceal who you are.
>
> People who are more familiar with Neo-Tech than I am have offered
> a couple explanations:
>
> 4. Why does he use a pen name?
>
> Two explanations have been offered by those inside the organization:
>
> "They hid behind pen names mostly to make the company appear larger than
> it really is. The company is really really small. But man do they have
> egos! Plus when you come right down to, they lied."
>
> - From: bmxe...@aol.com (BMXerToo)
> Newsgroups: alt.neo-tech
> Subject: Re: Ex-Neo-Techer Speaks
> Date: 22 Aug 1995 22:26:10 -0400
>
> "RE: "Why do they hide behind pseudonyms, anyway?"
>
> "I'm pretty sure it's so they can replace people without exposing the
> turn-over. So, while there have been a multitude of customer service
> mangers, there is only one Barbie Diamond, who the innocent customer might
> think is an I&O lifer. And of course, the names contain memes; like there
> are really beatuifull blondes covered in diamonds working at I&O!!!!!!!!!"
>
> - From: mat...@pop01.ny.us.ibm.net
> Newsgroups: alt.neo-tech
> Subject: Re: Ex-Neo-Techer Speaks
> Date: 23 Aug 1995 20:13:28 GMT
>
> [From the FAQ at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2278/neo-tech.html]
>
> >Who thinks "Madonna" is the name she was born with, for example?
>
> I do. Her full name is Madonna Louise Ciccone.
>
> >Doesn't everybody know who "Cher" is?
>
> Yeah, but probably because that's the only name she uses.
>
> >I think his upfront acknowledgement that "Mark Hamilton" is a
> >pseudonym is enough. You seem to be implying sleeze based on it.
> >Maybe he is a sleeze, maybe not, but a truth isn't helped by
> >trying to support it with a bad argument.
>
> There's ample evidence that the Neo-Tech organization is sleazy. One
> need only point to the lawsuit that they constantly talk of filing,
> and the bogus reasons why they won't do it. Better yet, simply look
> at the cult-like dreck that is regularly posted on alt.neo-tech.
China Direct
Kinda like Internal Revenue Service is a pseudonym for Federal
Extortion Racket?
Dan Evans wrote:
>
> In <596e1e$f...@acmex.gatech.edu>, jb...@prism.gatech.edu (Julia R. Cochrane) writes:
> >eva...@netaxs.com@netaxs.com (Dan Evans) writes:
> >
> >>In <32B0D1...@ix.netcom.com>, Mark Hamilton <nov...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> >
> >>>my father Wallace Ward (aka Dr.
> >>>Frank R. Wallace), my brother Frank Ward (aka Eric Savage), and
> >>>myself (Wallace H. Ward, aka Mark Hamilton)
> >
Matt Keys
Joseph G. Adams (jga...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: >I think his upfront acknowledgement that "Mark Hamilton" is a
: >pseudonym is enough. You seem to be implying sleeze based on it.
: >Maybe he is a sleeze, maybe not, but a truth isn't helped by
: >trying to support it with a bad argument.
: There's ample evidence that the Neo-Tech organization is sleazy. One
: need only point to the lawsuit that they constantly talk of filing,
: and the bogus reasons why they won't do it. Better yet, simply look
: at the cult-like dreck that is regularly posted on alt.neo-tech.
Who are Pips
Generally pips are dishonest losers who produce few if any
competitive values for others and society. They seldom if ever
exert the hard efforts required to do something really excellent
with their lives -- something about which they can be proud.
Pips are people who purposely attack values by distorting
out-of-context fragments of those values. Using those distortions,
pips attack values with false but logical-sounding criticisms.
They often conjure up straw men to bash. ...Pips create problems
where none exist.
The obsession with and anger over Neo-Tech templates among pips on
various Internet newsgroups demonstrate the effectiveness of such
templates. Indeed, these templates clearly, precisely identify the
dishonesty and malevolence of those people. Thus, such templates
should be used whenever appropriate. They are always effective and
never lose their punch. More important, they save precious time
needed for productive activities.
What Does Pipping Mean? Why Do Losers Pip?
Pipping involves attacking values by isolating out-of-context
fragments of the achievements produced by others or their
businesses. Pipping means building one's ego by manipulating with
words rather than by producing genuine values. Pipping is done to
make a loser appear superior to and more moral than the
achievements or businesses being attacked.
Pips reject any response that places their distorted fragments
back into context. Pips refuse to understand the full context of
the values they are attacking. They are not interested in values,
honesty, accuracy, answers, explanations, or learning. They are
only interested in the level of ego enhancement they can conjure
up through spurious attacks on values. Thus, once pipping is
detected, further communication or argument is worthless and
should cease so no more irreplaceable time is wasted. A principled
template such as this becomes an effective response. The attacking
pip will then stand alone, recognized as someone seeking unearned
importance. Hence, malicious, attack-mode pips will first vanish
from cyberspace and then from the world. ...Justice will be
served. Everyone will profit.
Throughout history, before cyberspace, civilization-benefiting
giants and their work were constantly attacked, always injured,
and sometimes destroyed by self-proclaimed "victims" and
attack-mode pips. Yet, valid questions and sincere criticisms
concerning radically new values will naturally occur. An important
example is Objectivist philosophy with its live-action
applications of Neo-Tech and Zonpower. Such valuable questions and
criticisms deserve patient, respectful responses. But, when
ego-pumping pipping is detected, further communication not only
wastes irreplaceable time of the respondent, but feeds that pip's
ego, allowing him or her to continue draining values created by
others. ...Simply template such losers. Let them complain. The
templates will eventually vanish them.
--
M Simon
Too lazy to read pages of turgid prose to find the answer to a
question that could be answered in three sentences.
Remember I read the original post and am familiar with its
turgid information free style.
Simon
-----------------------------------------------------------
cjer...@saims.skidmore.edu (claude jeruchim) wrote:
>M Simon (msi...@rworld.com) wrote:
>: After seeing Matt Keys' reply, I'm sorry I asked.
>: Simon
>Why?? Too lazy to use a web browser?
>What gives?
>CJ
>: -----------------------------------------------------------------
>: jga...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Joseph G. Adams) wrote:
>: >In article <58qmib$9...@kirin.wwa.com>, M Simon <msi...@rworld.com> wrote:
>: >>Please explain what you have done to the IRS.
>: >They've done nothing, aside from threatening to file a lawsuit. When
>: >people asked them when they planned to do it, no answer.
>: >For more on Neo-tech, see:
>: > http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2278/
>: >--
>: >Joseph G. Adams
>: >Stanford Law School, 3L
>: >http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jgadams/
>: In the end people get the government they deserve.
>: Read "The Weapon Shops of Isher" by A.E. vanVogt
>: Simon
>--
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Claude A. Jeruchim c...@dmatrix.com
> "Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing."
In the end people get the government they deserve.
China Direct
Joseph G. Adams wrote:
>
> China Direct <mar...@chinadirect.com> wrote:
>
> >Wow, Joe, you've really lost your integrity. Your post below is so out
> >of context it's just plain dishonest. ...One more soul is lost to the
> >anti-civilization.
>
Another example of a statement that's just plain dishonest. Joe, you've been
told dozens of times that the lawsuit will be filed when there are 500 good,
qualified cases. But, I guess you're just training for a lawyer-like
mind: what is isn't, what isn't is. Right O.J.? --China
Mike Wahler
In article <599r26$8...@cardinal1.Stanford.EDU>, jga...@leland.Stanford.EDU
says...
>
>
>China Direct <mar...@chinadirect.com> wrote:
>
>>Joseph G. Adams wrote:
>>>
>>> China Direct <mar...@chinadirect.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Wow, Joe, you've really lost your integrity. Your post below is so out
>>> >of context it's just plain dishonest. ...One more soul is lost to the
>>> >anti-civilization.
>>>
>>> What's out of context? And why won't you file the lawsuit?
>>
been
>>told dozens of times that the lawsuit will be filed when there are 500
good,
>>qualified cases. But, I guess you're just training for a lawyer-like
>>mind: what is isn't, what isn't is. Right O.J.? --China
>
>Under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, you need exactly
>one good, qualified case to file a class action lawsuit.
>
>Waiting until you get 500 cases is a bogus reason.
>
>
>--
Hi Joe, and all participating in this thread:
I've been watching this thread for some time now, and a recurring
theme brought up by Joe: how many plaintiffs are needed.
Needed for what? To satisfy some authorities' prescribed requirements?
Or to achieve a specific objective?
Stop and think a minute. What do you suppose the objective of the
lawsuit is? What is the likelihood that a suit with a single
plaintiff will achieve that objective? Two plaintiffs? Ten? 500?
500 from the same city? 500 of the same gender? 500 with diverse
locations and attributes (profession/location/etc)?
I may be wrong, but it appears to me that one of the things the sponsors
of the lawsuit will be trying to do, is show that the alleged IRS abuse is
widespread. Their proposed method of retribution remains to be seen (by me).
Hint: the objective of filing the lawsuit is NOT to satisfy some "Rule."
I suspect that Joe does indeed know what the objective is, and for some
reason wants to prevent that objective from being reached. He knows that
a single plaintiff will not achieve that objective, hence he urges that
the suit be handled this way.
I'll leave it to him to explain why.
-Mike
China Direct
> >I'm not sure what you mean by "won." According to the published
> >memorandum decision of the Tax Court, the deficiencies assessed by
> >the IRS was upheld, along with the penalties for fraud and intentional
> >disregard of rules and regulations. And the decision refers to the fact
> >that Wallace Ward was convicted of criminal tax fraud. Ward v.
> >Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1995-286.
> >
> >I am sure that everyone will appreciate how appropriate it is for the
> >leader of "fully integrated honesty" to be convicted of fraud.
> >
> >Dan Evans ************************
> >http://www.netaxs.com/~evansdb
> >This is not a legal opinion unless
> >you agreed to pay for it.
> >**********************************
Kinda like the way Galileo was convicted of making fraudelant statements by the
authorities because he stated that the earth orbited the sun. Thus, Galileo
was convicted of fraud even though he was the one exerting fully integrated
honesty while the authorities were abiding by the truth as stated in the bible.
hmmm?
Dan Evans
In <32B851...@chinadirect.com>, China Direct <mar...@chinadirect.com>
writes:
[blah, blah, blah]
> --China
Someone refresh my recollection. Who is "China Direct"? Is it Wallace
Ward (aka Frank Wallace), one of his sons, or someone else? And why
is it necessary for him to use a "pen name"?
ether1
>>Today a lot of the war is over. We won.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean by "won." According to the published
>memorandum decision of the Tax Court, the deficiencies assessed by
>the IRS was upheld, along with the penalties for fraud and intentional
>disregard of rules and regulations. And the decision refers to the fact
>that Wallace Ward was convicted of criminal tax fraud. Ward v.
>Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1995-286.
>
>I am sure that everyone will appreciate how appropriate it is for the
>leader of "fully integrated honesty" to be convicted of fraud.
>
>Dan Evans ************************
>http://www.netaxs.com/~evansdb
>This is not a legal opinion unless
>you agreed to pay for it.
>**********************************
pyotr filipivich
otto*jg@free*net.tlh.fl.us (Giovanni 8) writes:
}> In article <58qtp6$b...@cardinal1.Stanford.EDU>,
}> jga...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Joseph G. Adams) wrote:
}>> Mark Hamilton <nov...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
}>> The night of [1986-11-03], after being raided all day long at two
}>> locations by at least 22 IRS agents, my father Wallace Ward (aka Dr.
}>> Frank R. Wallace), my brother Frank Ward (aka Eric Savage), and
}>> myself (Wallace H. Ward, aka Mark Hamilton) had a gut-wrenching
}>> decision to make:
}> Why does everyone in your family get two names?
I'm kind of curious - is "Giovanni 8" an example of the means
"his" family uses to sort out who's who: "Hi ma, it's me Giovanni!" "Is
that Giovanni my husnband, my son Giovanni who is doing well in college,
or my no good bum of a son who never writes and is still dating that
hussy and dropping out of school?" "It's your daughter, the one with
two names 'Giovanni Smith' - remember, you were at the Wedding."
}I counted at least 4 for each, and 5 for some, though they may
}have more he didn't mention.
Heck, I know a guy who'se alias has an alias. (I'm not sure if
"Bob" known as "Robert of Dundee" would count.
And a couple who have more variations on their "own" name they go by
something else entirely.
}Why? Because everyone has a right to be let alone.
And there is that, too.
tschus
Barry F. Lenin III
Vp Fortesque Labs, "We make last week happen next month".
a Division of the Fortesque Company.
}jgo
--
pyotr filipivich, sometimes owl, Nikolai Petrovich in the SCA.
"Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause" Fortune Cookie.
Then again, it could be more than a tad serious.
Dan Evans
> In any case, such pips and nihilists have no understanding of what
> it takes to start, build, and run competitive businesses that
> ultimately provide the livelihoods and well beings for them and
> everyone else on Earth. And, who else besides such value
> destroyers has the time or inclination to pip -- to ego pump by
> purposely dragging down successes and values created by others?
> ...Neo-Tech stands alone in protecting value-and-job producers
> from intentional value destroyers.
Is Neo-Tech really funded by publishing books on how to cheat at
poker?
Does playing poker, or publishing books about how to play poker,
really contribute to an increase in the wealth of the people and the
value of the nation?
Dan Evans
In <59b3pp$1...@elaine43.Stanford.EDU>, jga...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Joseph G. Adams) writes:
>For example, I've already explained to Neo-Tech in other posts exactly
>why their lawsuit will not succeed if it is based on the Eighth Amendment.
The question that I wonder about is how Neo-Tech expects to avoid the
Anti-Injunction Act, section 7421, which says that, except as specifically
provided in the Internal Revenue Code, "no suit for the purpose of
restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in
any court by any person...."
I believe that similar statutes have been in force in the United States
since the 1800s, and no court is ever going to issue any injunction or
other relief against the IRS unless some way is found around that statute.
So the number of plaintiffs they have is irrelevant if they get blown out
by preliminary objections as soon as the suit is filed.
J. Bruce Scott
Matt Keys wrote:
>
> Joseph G. Adams (jga...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
>
> : >I think his upfront acknowledgement that "Mark Hamilton" is a
> : >pseudonym is enough. You seem to be implying sleeze based on it.
> : >Maybe he is a sleeze, maybe not, but a truth isn't helped by
> : >trying to support it with a bad argument.
>
> : There's ample evidence that the Neo-Tech organization is sleazy. One
> : need only point to the lawsuit that they constantly talk of filing,
> : and the bogus reasons why they won't do it. Better yet, simply look
> : at the cult-like dreck that is regularly posted on alt.neo-tech.
>
> Who are Pips
>
Ah yes, more canned spam from Neo-Dreck. How typical a response.
claude jeruchim
good call, Mike. Joe tries to argue that only one case is needed,
so waiting for 500 is a bogus reason. The non-sequitor technique
is easy to see, however. (Ignoring the purpose and objective,
like you say.) I think we have a classic "pip" in
action here. Why do we need Koah when we have people like Joe?
CJ
Mike Wahler (mkwa...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <599r26$8...@cardinal1.Stanford.EDU>, jga...@leland.Stanford.EDU
: -Mike
--