Dan Evans seems obsessed with me. He just can’t stop writing about me, he’s even added me to the his “Tax Protestor Dossier” referring to me as a “guru” and “big fish”. Dan is not one to shy away from personal attacks, he can’t resist calling me a “run of the mill anarchist” as opposed to anarchist.
Let me address the “tax protestor” label. I’m opposed to forcing people to give you money. I think it’s wrong. Dan doesn’t think it’s wrong for people called government. For those called government, robbery (forcing people to give you money) is good, even moral. The immoral ones are people like me who oppose it and don’t accept the double standard. Obviously Dan Evans thinks a different moral code applies when people are called government. Since I’m opposed to forcing people to give you money, according to Dan Evans, I am a “tax protestor”. It’s easier, and more accurate to just say I am opposed to forcing people to give you money. Dan doesn’t do it this way because then he could not convince people I’m the bad guy he claims I am.
I debunk part of Dan’s dossier on me in the below video. What Dan Evans does, as typical of attorneys, is raise a strawman and cherry-pick. He deliberately (dishonestly) gets my position wrong and then attempts to prove my position is false. He will never address the lack of evidence unless to claim the constitution and laws are not a matter of evidence. These written instruments apply as a matter of law. In other words, the law applies because the law says so. Dan Evans fails to understand that is a common logical fallacy, circular logic.
Again: “if one is physically in Arizona, then the constitution and laws of the state apply” is an argument, a mere conclusory statement. As with any argument or opinion, it must be based on facts. While Dan would no doubt insist that is true with my arguments/opinions, this opinion is different. According to Dan Evans, this opinion does not require any facts to prove it’s true. Here we tend to see the logical fallacy of appeal to consequences, such as the sound of handcuffs being slammed on your wrists is all the evidence you need to prove the laws apply. Dan and his associates like this logical fallacy, they use it all the time in an attempt to prove the argument the laws apply.
Evans also cherry-picks by only using citations where my position was ignored and rejected. He never gives the back story and only takes was was reported. Even when there’s video readily available, such as with Ian Freeman. Dan Evans deliberately leaves out where King shouted, “I don’t need evidence, I have a statute!” Dan also deliberately leaves out the prosecutor was unable to show any facts the statutes applied just because Ian is physically in New Hampshire. Dan goes to a subjective opinion instead of to the objective record of the hearing. If you think Dan’s accusations against me are true, ask yourself why he doesn’t use the objective record available?
Dan refuses to acknowledge where tickets and assessments have been kicked out. Here is documentary proof of an attack by the California Franchise Tax Board being dropped; Dan has never commented on this as far as I know, why is that?
Because this evidence does not support his view of me and my work, so he just ignores it. I’ll be doing another video debunking the rest of the garbage Dan has on that dossier. It is my intent that those unfamiliar with my work will not just take Dan’s word for it, to do your own investigation and look at the facts before making a determination.
And those that think, like Dan, that I am a conman, that I’m dishonest or misguided, you are invited to come on a live broadcast and present your evidence. If you think there are facts proving the constitution and laws apply to me because I am physically in Arizona (or where ever) please feel free to ambush me on a live broadcast and present them. I’ll do another live show if you can set that up. We can also record. It’s up to you.
And for Dan and his associates, you’re invited to come on the show as a panel against me. Bring all your collective expertise and confront me with your evidence live on the air. I don’t care if it’s 5-1 or 10-1. We can do another live broadcast so I can’t “control the recording”.