$300,000 Income Tax Reward (Peymon Mottahedeh)

[peymon]

When I feel like reading pages of entertaining gibberish, I'll pull out Dr. Seuss

Great LaVidaRoja Blisfully retired,

This post is serious, not a joke. Rather than making an ad attack (see hominem https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem ) why don't you make a logical, legal argument?

If I am wrong, I would appreciate you correcting me.

[NYGman]

First, I didnt say it had to be a Judge, just an option. Happy for a legal (SJD) expert on Tax to adjudicate. The issue I, and I Think all of us have with your challenge, is that you are the sole arbiter of success. You are not independent, and have a vested interest in not accepting a valid position. So someone independent has to judge, and they need to be Qualified and understand Federal Tax Law. Heck, a Law School Income Tax professor would do. I can get my old one, he is a JD and MST, as well as a CPA, but happy for you to find someone equally qualified to judge your position. Heck, I don't think I would need more than a simple statement that individuals living any state of the United states, are subject to US Tax laws. This would mean that taxation is based on their gross income, as defined under IRC §61. While gross income may be reduced by certain allowable deductions, and where certain items (eg. Tax Exempt Bonds) may be exempt from taxation, a typical wage earner, independent contractor, or self-employed person is subject to tax, and can not be exempt themselves. Further, all income, and not just that of federal workers or those living in DC are taxable.

Prove me wrong, by escrowing the 300k, and agreeing with me on an independent (not you) person with requisite understanding of Tax Law, to judge if you can rebut that. Heck, I probably don't even need to say anything, just provide your rationale of why you are not subject to tax, and honestly I can't recall your twisted logic as to why you don't think you need to pay tax when you earn income, and let them opine on the validity of your position. If an independent review validates your position I will donate 10k to a charity of your choice, and am willing to escrow my amount with yours. However, we need an expert in tax law to adjudicate, not you, and your unlearned opinions. Just because you think you are right, doesn't mean you are. i would be happy to admit I am wrong, are you?

[NYGman]

When I feel like reading pages of entertaining gibberish, I'll pull out Dr. Seuss

Great LaVidaRoja Blisfully retired,

This post is serious, not a joke. Rather than making an ad attack (see hominem https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem ) why don't you make a logical, legal argument?

If I am wrong, I would appreciate yo correcting me.

You are wrong, and have been corrected before, but you wont admit you are wrong, and believe those correcting you are wrong, so whats the point. If you are the sole arbiter of if someone has successfully rebutted your position, then no one can win. You are not willing to have an independent "expert" review your position and its validity, as you don't believe anyone other than you is an expert in this field. Even a qualified law professor knows nothing compared to you, the end all, be all in US Tax. Well you are not, and you are dead wrong. In fact you are so wrong, you dare risk independent review of your position for fear of the truth. And likely would deny the correctness of anyone who actually knows what they talk about.

Again I have a legitimate 10k offer to you, but you have to play by my rules. Happy to agree on an expert, but they have to be qualified, and either have a law degree and US Tax expertise, or be a judge. Funny how we seem to have several folks here who would meet the requirement, some you have responded to, but in your infinite wisdom, you have deemed them wrong, and you are the one who will not, or never will be, corrected.

Even if Wes takes the time to point out every fallacy in your essay you posted to him, you wouldn't accept it. So whats the point.

[Cpt Banjo]

If I am wrong, please show me. I will humbly appreciate your correcting me with law, facts and logic.

Let's clear up one thing first. You trumpet about how you avoided $700,000 in federal tax liens. Yet the material at the link you furnished indicates that the liens weren't against you personally, but rather against Freedom Law School. As far as your personal encounters with the IRS are concerned, you have had multiple judgments rendered against you for back taxes, penalties, and interest, which are summarized here: http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/peymon-mottahedeh Physician, heal thyself indeed.

[jcolvin2]

In 2009 IRS filed about $700,000 of bogus, illegal, baseless tax liens on me for over 10 years of taxes! 1) The agent and his manager after our meeting ruled against me, 2) The IRS Appeals officer ruled against me, 3) The IRS lawyer on appeal sent the case back to IRS Appeals to give a proper hearing that I was wrongfully denied, 4) The new IRS Appeal Officer ZEROED OUT ALL OF THE ILLEGAL IRS TAX LIENS, 5) The Tax Court Judge singed off on it and 6) IRS sent me Withdrawal of tax lien notices to me, COMPLETELY REMOVING ALL OF THE IRS TAX LIENS THAT HAD ILLEGALLY BEEN FILED AGAINST ME. See the documentation here at Victory #3: https://livefreenow.org/victories-testi ... victories/

The documentation at the link provided relates to federal tax liens filed against Freedom Law School, not against Peymon Mottahedeh personally. The IRS filed a Notice of Federal Tax Lien (NFTL) against Peymon Mottahedeh in Pasco County, Florida on December 9, 2015, covering tax years 1992-1994 and 2001-2006, totaling $276,666.10 (reference number 2015196245, Book 9296 Page 1448). There does not appear to be a withdrawal or certificate of release filed with respect to this NFTL.

[wserra]

Why did I get a spam warning? I am not a spammer. Why was I labeled as such from the get go? Why prejudging?

I'm getting ahead of myself because you are posting a great deal in a short period of time, and I wanted to give you guidance on what the board permits. It's pretty much common sense combined with common courtesy.

As far as spamming is concerned, the mods of this board may have certain disagreements. I don't believe you spammed the board in your first post, and I would not have redacted it. It seems moot by now, though, because the link has been reposted elsewhere. I even did so, intentionally, because I didn't believe it to be spam. I did believe it nonsense, however. We endorse keeping the nonsense to expose it.

A couple of other things I've seen in your posts and will be addressing: (1) You don't get to repeat posts verbatim or close to it. The later ones will be deleted. (2) "Prove" when used in a legal context does not mean copy and paste a bunch of words, unless those words are from legally authoritative sources. You are not a legally authoritative source. (3) Making claims of legal success require proof. Bloviation isn't proof.

Are we not all entitled to the presumption of innocent until PROVEN GUILTY?

Sure, once "we all" are charged with a crime. While some of us here do/did have the power to do that, it's not done on the board.

Are my post and replies gong to get censored? Or will they be allowed in a free intellectual, civil debate and conversation?

So long as you don't do the stuff above or otherwise obstruct people's use of the board, you will not be censored. Fortunately for you, it is not even necessary that your "debate" be "intellectual".

[wserra]

Dear wserra,
You want me to prove you wrong? I will do that. If you can prove me wrong, I would sincerely and humbly appreciate yoi correcting me:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

United States and States are defined in the Internal Revenue Code to mean ONLY Washington D.C.

By Peymon Mottahedeh, February 2, 2020

Well, it didn't take very long at all to come to the first problem: you're not an authority. Neither am I. So lets skip down until we find an actual authority proving that the IRC only applies to D.C.

[Snip.]

Please review this legal essay.

Why? That's not an authority either.

[Snip.]

26 USC §1

Wow! An authority! 'Course, it doesn't say that the IRC only applies to D.C.

[Snip.]

26 USC § 6012(a)

And another one. Also doesn't say that the IRC only applies to D.C., though.

[Snip.]

Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, 153 (1917)

Another. Doesn't say that the IRC only applies to D.C., though.

[Snip through much more of the same.]

When we go to 26 USC § 7701(a)(10) the term State is defined as: “The term "State" shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.” [Yes, we need the proper construction to carry out the provisions of this title!]

It is clear per Meese v. Keene that Title 26 applies only to DC

That is only clear if you don't know what "includes" means. Moreover, I note that it's your conclusion, not the conclusion of any authority you cite.

So why don't we look at what happens when we consult authorities that actually address the issue? “Steiner also argued that the word ‘includes,’ which appears throughout the tax laws, limits the court’s jurisdiction under the tax laws. This argument has been specifically rejected in United States v. Condo, 741 F.2d 238, 239 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1164 (1985), in which this court held that the word ‘includes’ is one of expansion, not limitation.” US v. Steiner, 963 F.2d 381 (9th Cir. 1992). "Ward reaches this twisted conclusion by misinterpreting a portion of the Income Tax Code. The 1913 Act defined the words ‘state’ or ‘United States” to ‘include’ United States territories and the District of Columbia; Ward asks this court to interpret the word ‘include’ as a term of limitation, rather than of definition. ... We find each of appellant’s contentions to be utterly without merit.” US v. Ward, 833 F.2d 1538 (11th Cir. 1987). You want a dozen or so more?

You hop around, hither and yon, pulling quotes out of context, from which you then conclude something ridiculous. In the process, you ignore everything that addresses your issue directly, because every time something does, your conclusion loses. It's a fool's game. The reader will see the same pattern for every ridiculous thing you conclude - exalt the chaff, ignore the wheat.

[Famspear]

[

If I am wrong, please show me. I will humbly appreciate your correcting me with law, facts and logic.

Let's clear up one thing first. You trumpet about how you avoided $700,000 in federal tax liens. Yet the material at the link you furnished indicates that the liens weren't against you personally, but rather against Freedom Law School. As far as your personal encounters with the IRS are concerned, you have had multiple judgments rendered against you for back taxes, penalties, and interest, which are summarized here: http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/peymon-mottahedeh Physician, heal thyself indeed.

For an individual who seems to think he is some sort of guru regarding Federal income taxes, Peymon has some serious problems. In January 2015, the U.S. Tax Court ruled that Peymon Mottahedeh was burdened with valid Federal income tax and penalty deficiencies for years 2001 through 2006 of $105,756, and that his wife had Federal income tax and penalty deficiencies of $33,949. As of today, the couple's appeal is pending at the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (case no. 19-71432 for Peymon and no. 19-71410 for his wife). Peymon is facing a deadline of June 16 to file his opening brief with the Court.

[Famspear]

The totals for Peymon for years 2001 through 2006 are:

taxes $70,207
penalties for failure to timely file the returns: $15,796
penalties for failure to timely pay the taxes: $17,553
penalties for failure to timely make estimated tax payments: $2,200

Total, $105,756.

There will also be interest charged.

[NYGman]

Smart money is on a fail for Peymon, although if he looses at least a lot of that 300k will go to good use, back taxes and P&I. However I venture a guess that the 300k isn't anywhere to be found, but if it is real, at least the IRS has something to take from.

So Peymon, does the 300k actually exist anyway, what proof do you have to validate it's existence? Do you have a bank account or Escrow holding the funds? If you are running a legitimate competition, I would expect an escrow. Guessing you didn't do that as it would actually require having the 300k to lose. And since you are the sole arbiter of a win, that will never happen. No one is going to ever convince you, that you are 100% WRONG!

Back to a point that I believe Wes made, you can make up any competition to prove any fact you want, but if you're the judge you never going to give credence to something you don't like, and as such will never lose, so what's the point.

Unless you escrow the funds, and appoint an independent reviewer, you may as well offer 1Trillion dollars, it's all Ball Bearings.

[Pottapaug1938]

So Peymon, does the 300k actually exist anyway, what proof do you have to validate it's existence? Do you have a bank account or Escrow holding the funds? If you are running a legitimate competition, I would expect an escrow. Guessing you didn't do that as it would actually require having the 300k to lose. And since you are the sole arbiter of a win, that will never happen. No one is going to ever convince you, that you are 100% WRONG!

As I said above:

Challenges of this kind always depend on proving a matter to the satisfaction of the issuer of the challenge. It then becomes an easy matter for the issuer to claim that he is not satisfied -- he will dismiss the proof, demand more proof, explain it away, and more. The offer is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing (thank you, Shakespeare).


And Peymon -- before you whine, again, about ad hominem attacks, you might want to focus, instead, on the substance of my post, which is that you have immunized yourself from having to pay the $300K because you have shifted the goalposts (look it up).

As to why I am not doing anything to rebut your claims, read these decisions, and you'll see why I decline to do so:

https://casetext.com/case/wnuck-v-commissioner-1

https://casetext.com/case/crain-v-cir

In particular:

"We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit."

[peymon]

First, I didnt say it had to be a Judge, just an option. Happy for a legal (SJD) expert on Tax to adjudicate. The issue I, and I Think all of us have with your challenge, is that you are the sole arbiter of success. You are not independent, and have a vested interest in not accepting a valid position. So someone independent has to judge, and they need to be Qualified and understand Federal Tax Law. Heck, a Law School Income Tax professor would do. I can get my old one, he is a JD and MST, as well as a CPA, but happy for you to find someone equally qualified to judge your position. Heck, I don't think I would need more than a simple statement that individuals living any state of the United states, are subject to US Tax laws. This would mean that taxation is based on their gross income, as defined under IRC §61. While gross income may be reduced by certain allowable deductions, and where certain items (eg. Tax Exempt Bonds) may be exempt from taxation, a typical wage earner, independent contractor, or self-employed person is subject to tax, and can not be exempt themselves. Further, all income, and not just that of federal workers or those living in DC are taxable.

Prove me wrong, by escrowing the 300k, and agreeing with me on an independent (not you) person with requisite understanding of Tax Law, to judge if you can rebut that. Heck, I probably don't even need to say anything, just provide your rationale of why you are not subject to tax, and honestly I can't recall your twisted logic as to why you don't think you need to pay tax when you earn income, and let them opine on the validity of your position. If an independent review validates your position I will donate 10k to a charity of your choice, and am willing to escrow my amount with yours. However, we need an expert in tax law to adjudicate, not you, and your unlearned opinions. Just because you think you are right, doesn't mean you are. i would be happy to admit I am wrong, are you?

Dear NYGman,

Thank you for your reply. You bring up Section 61 of the Code that does not list wages and salaries but lists royalties, fees and fringe benefits as taxable. Well a George Washington University Law School Law Professor (former DOJ Appellate lawyer) made that same bogus argument in his claim for the reward. I have reprinted below his email exchange with me. I refuted his baseless claim, gave him a 2nd chance to make teh reward claim and he failed.

All I have seen so far on this platfrom is a bunch of insults, character assassinations and ad hominem attacks. See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem

Where is that robust intelligent legal analysis in this forum citing (and linking to) statues and US Supreme Court cases? I hear crickets!!!

PROVE to me section 61 imposes income tax on average Americans's wages and salaries! Court of Appeal decisions are often judge made political law, sometimes crooked, like the Dred Scott v. Sanford which was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for black people, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.

It took people like me, with courage to oppose and have Dredd Scott case changed over the decades, while wimps hid behind that decision that claimed a black man is an animal, that can be owned, like a piece of property.

Show me law, not crooked political judge opinions.

[Mod snips lengthy cut and paste from Payme's website. - WS]

[peymon]

If I am wrong, please show me. I will humbly appreciate your correcting me with law, facts and logic.

Let's clear up one thing first. You trumpet about how you avoided $700,000 in federal tax liens. Yet the material at the link you furnished indicates that the liens weren't against you personally, but rather against Freedom Law School. As far as your personal encounters with the IRS are concerned, you have had multiple judgments rendered against you for back taxes, penalties, and interest, which are summarized here: http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/peymon-mottahedeh Physician, heal thyself indeed.

Wrong. The $700,000 IRS tax liens were filed against me and Freedom Law School as you see on the IRS documents.
As to TPgurus.wikidot.com lies and half-truth her is my rebuttal:

1) The tax liens for years 92-94 are very old and have fallen off. Don't you check the records before you cite them? TPgurus.wikidot.com obviously does not do his homework, so you have to do it yourself.

2) The 01 to 06 years are on appeal due to government incompetence. If you really want to know more look at the tax court docket. Hold your horses until the appeal is done.

3) How conveniently TPgurus.wikidot.com does NOT mention that I BEAT THE IRS for 11 years of taxes (more years that IRS has ever come after me for) and for almost $700,000 (far more than IRS won against me in BOTH tax court cases.) I BEAT THE IRS FOR A MUCH BIGGER DOLLAR AMOUNTS and the 01 to 06 case is not even over!

4) I have not filed, nor paid Income since since 1989 (30 years). IRS "won" in Tax Court and court of appeal for 92-94 by IGNORING LAW AND FACTS of the case (only 3 years) and 01 to 06 (5 years) is still on appeal. 8 years total out of 30 years of not filing and paying. For 22 yeas IRS has NOT been able to come after me. That is a WIN .More than DOUBLE not filing and paying years. HMMMMMMMMMMM. Based on numbers who is the winner in this equation to you?

5) I also beat the IRS, who after over 13 years of investigating me as an "abusive tax shelter promoter" could find nothing wrong with what I have been dong a closed down that investigation, just like the Trump/Russia Conspiracy Hoax came to an end after 3 years. See Victory #2 here: https://livefreenow.org/victories-testi ... victories/

6) Is TPgurus.wikidot.com going to "fair", "balanced" and report my wins against the IRS as well? I am not going to hold my breath for that.

[peymon]

[Mod deletes entire post that is nothing but verbatim repetition of last one above. - WS]

[peymon]

When I feel like reading pages of entertaining gibberish, I'll pull out Dr. Seuss

Great LaVidaRoja Blisfully retired,

This post is serious, not a joke. Rather than making an ad attack (see hominem https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem ) why don't you make a logical, legal argument?

If I am wrong, I would appreciate yo correcting me.

You are wrong, and have been corrected before, but you wont admit you are wrong, and believe those correcting you are wrong, so whats the point. If you are the sole arbiter of if someone has successfully rebutted your position, then no one can win. You are not willing to have an independent "expert" review your position and its validity, as you don't believe anyone other than you is an expert in this field. Even a qualified law professor knows nothing compared to you, the end all, be all in US Tax. Well you are not, and you are dead wrong. In fact you are so wrong, you dare risk independent review of your position for fear of the truth. And likely would deny the correctness of anyone who actually knows what they talk about.

Again I have a legitimate 10k offer to you, but you have to play by my rules. Happy to agree on an expert, but they have to be qualified, and either have a law degree and US Tax expertise, or be a judge. Funny how we seem to have several folks here who would meet the requirement, some you have responded to, but in your infinite wisdom, you have deemed them wrong, and you are the one who will not, or never will be, corrected.

Even if Wes takes the time to point out every fallacy in your essay you posted to him, you wouldn't accept it. So whats the point.

Great LaVidaRoja Blisfully retired,
Go ahead and prove I am wrong. just saying I am wrong is not enough. You have not read anything I have written to even refute it. Just parroting "you are wrong" does not make me wrong.
Now, go ahead and use your LEGAL AND INTELLECTUAL ANALYSIS SKILLS TO SHOW ME I AM WRONG.

Here is the $300,000 Income Tax Reward page. Go ahead and read it and THEN REFUTE IT WITH INTELLECTUAL LEGAL ANALYSIS, IF YOU CAN.
https://livefreenow.org/eye-opening-edu ... ax-reward/

[Gregg]

And if the founder of Freedom Law School is correct about his theory of income taxes not being legal, he certainly seemed incapable of using his knowledge to get rid of the notice of federal tax lien when it recorded against him for his unpaid income taxes.

Physician, heal thyself.

Is Freedom Law School the Law School of Youtube University?

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Admittedly I only skim read his gibberish... but, er, don't the emails he's posted tear down his whole rational for his argument? Awkward!

Hoist by his own Pey-tard!

[wserra]

Where is that robust intelligent legal analysis in this forum citing (and linking to) statues and US Supreme Court cases? I hear crickets!!!

You have it somewhat backwards. It would be quite amusing to watch you in court telling a judge that s/he has to prove you wrong. You come here with certain propositions - shop-worn gibberish to be sure, but propositions - that no law requires you to pay income tax, that the requirement to file a return violates the Fifth Amendment, and so forth. It's not up to anyone here to prove the negative, that you're wrong. It's up to you to prove that you're right. As you may have heard or read, legal proof consists of "Statute x says so" or "Case y says so". If the next step is an inference - in other words, if no court or statute states your proposition exactly - then you must at least show that no court or statute rejects it.

Can't do that, can you, bubbe?

Court of Appeal decisions are often judge made political law, sometimes crooked, like the Dred Scott v. Sanford

As you actually note - thus contradicting yourself in a single sentence - the Dred Scott to which you refer was not a Court of Appeals case, but rather a Supreme Court case. And yes, it was indeed horribly wrong. It's not the only one (Korematsu-Hirabayashi come to mind). But then why do you yourself try to cite Supreme Court cases? Up the revolution, Payme!

Oh, and it's "Sandford".

It took people like me, with courage to oppose and have Dredd Scott case changed

That was you? Damn, I've obviously misjudged you. You're a great legal scholar and world-class humanitarian. Also a medical marvel - since the post-Civil War Amendments nullified Dred Scott, you must be approaching two hundred years old.

Just one little thing - it's Dred Scott. You're obviously thinking of Judge Dredd, an understandable mistake from someone of your legal sophistication.

Show me law, not crooked political judge opinions.

Ah, one of those: "Prove to me a legal proposition, but don't use law." Nice work if you can get it.

[NYGman]

Dear NYGman,

Thank you for your reply. You bring up Section 61 of the Code that does not list wages and salaries but lists royalties, fees and fringe benefits as taxable. Well a George Washington University Law School Law Professor (former DOJ Appellate lawyer) made that same bogus argument in his claim for the reward. I have reprinted below his email exchange with me. I refuted his baseless claim, gave him a 2nd chance to make teh reward claim and he failed.

Ok, here we get to the basic problem, you don't understand §61, and when told what it clearly says, to anyone with any common sense, it is, as you have been told, but continue to deny, right there in (1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items.

Yes, it does not say wages, but tell me, what are wages? Wages are paid as compensation to a worker, for the work they do. Do they do it out of their own goodwill? No. Compensation for services covers wages, salaries, onetime payment for work, all normal compensation for work items. Then there are other items, that may not inherently be viewed as compensation for work under the normal definition, as you may not work for them. For example I may receive fees without doing any work, and they chose to include this in 1, as compensation. Same with commissions, fringe benefits, which are by definition something you don't work for, and then to ensure the include all possible current and future ideas of paying people they have that catchall "other similar items." And don't throw royalties in there, that is another line and a distinct item. We are looking only at (1) which is compensation for services, and thats wages, no matter how you look at it.

So unless you are an idiot, §61(1) includes wages and salary payments, and it doesn't have to say so specifically, as both can be defined by the same phrase compensation for services. But you continue to deny this logical connection, and go through mental hoops to try to prove this needs to be actually included in the definition. How about this, I pay Wes a tribute for the work he does as a Mod here, he is so great, he deserves it. I would argue that Tribute is covered under §61 is specified in (1). Call it what the heck you want, it doesn't matter, If it is to compensate for services, it is taxable, end of.

All I have seen so far on this platfrom is a bunch of insults, character assassinations and ad hominem attacks. See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem

Where is that robust intelligent legal analysis in this forum citing (and linking to) statues and US Supreme Court cases? I hear crickets!!!

See above for both, I am insulting you, because you just don't want to get it. You have a position, and no one can dispell that notion. You believe in your intelligence above all others, but are a fool.

PROVE to me section 61 imposes income tax on average Americans's w[media][/media]ages and salaries! Court of Appeal decisions are often judge made political law, sometimes crooked, like the Dred Scott v. Sanford which was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for black people, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.

I would say give me my $300k, but 1) you don't have 300k, 2) you will not accept the above as valid for some illogical reason, and 3) you are an idiot.

I feel like I am in a Monty Python argument sketch, only we all supply true statements, but you just say no it isn't every time, just because. Well Yes it is.

Again, as Wes pointed out, prove we are not right, you have the burden of proof here. This is well founded law. everyone else (rational people) understands this simple section, why don't you?

Go ahead and prove I am wrong. just saying I am wrong is not enough.

Yes it is

You have not read anything I have written to even refute it.

Yes I have

Just parroting "you are wrong" does not make me wrong.

Beautiful Plumage, the Norwegen blue

Now, go ahead and use your LEGAL AND INTELLECTUAL ANALYSIS SKILLS TO SHOW ME I AM WRONG.

You ARE WRONG

Here is the $300,000 Income Tax Reward page. Go ahead and read it and THEN REFUTE IT WITH INTELLECTUAL LEGAL ANALYSIS, IF YOU CAN.
https://livefreenow.org/eye-opening-edu ... ax-reward/

and here is the appropriate sketch, with just as mutch legal value and much ore intelectaual value:

[wserra]

One other rule: Peymon has twice edited his posts after someone responded to them. Please don't do that. The next time, you lose your ability to edit.