|
After they ripped me off for the "Fair Tax," they thought they could rip me off for
everything I had. Unfortunately for them, they ran into a brick wall of 1,500
copyrights, a great number of them registered.
I always give credit to Richard Lugar for the inspiration for my article on a national sales tax, mentioning his name in the opening paragraph of my study. I would have never done my study on a national retail sales tax if it had not been for his original plan, which, to my dismay, did not eliminate the payroll tax. To quote the publication Dollars & Sense, Volume 26, Number 4, MAY/JUNE 1995, front page of published brochure: "Presidential candidate (and Senator) Richard Lugar (R-IN) rocked Washington April 5 with his proposal 'to abolish completely the federal individual and corporate tax, capital gains taxes, gift taxes, and inheritance taxes.' Lugar said he 'would replace the money obtained from these taxes with money from a national retail sales tax collected in the same way that state sales taxes are now collected in 45 states. I propose that the states be responsible for collection so that the federal IRS apparatus can be dismantled promptly.'" Let me be honest here. No politician would have eliminated the payroll tax, because Social Security had always been the so-called third rail of politics. Touch it, and you do not get re-elected. It is easy to understand why I was the first and only person at the time to propose eliminating what we have as a payroll tax, and substituting a whole new system of taxation. I am not a politician. My original plan needed a name, so I called it Mercantilism, since the taxation was left to the merchants. The plan was to eliminate all taxes, including the payroll taxes, and replacing them with a 30% national retail sales tax, with no exceptions or exemptions, and with a complete re-structuring of the Social Security system. I sent my work out to a lot of places.
See My Original Article Here
Georgia Republican John Linder first introduced the "Fair Tax" bill in July 1999 to the 106th United States Congress, some 4 years after I had originally done the first study on a national sales tax in 1995. The "Fair Tax" book was published in August, 2005, 10 years after my own study. Needless to say, many people would read my article, which was sent out as a written description plus sidebars. An updated version of my original article was put up on my own web site circa 2004 in condensed form. To be blunt, it is outrageous that nobody mentioned this. Copying Mercantilism, however, is not too difficult. Furthermore, plagiarism is neither infringement nor fraud, and this is what made it difficult to get people to pay attention, because nobody cared, and this is the way it has always been in that sector. Plagiarism is stealing the thoughts of others to enhance your own work. A lot of people were trying to balance the budget back in the years 1995 to 2000. It was my article, however, which bumped everyone up to the national sales tax which included eliminating the payroll tax. Infringement is basing your whole piece largely on a component of my piece, and this can be civil or criminal in Copyright Law, Title 17. Criminal fraud, however, is trying to pass off my work as your work, because you never had any work to begin with in the first place. This brings us back to my opening statement, where I said that people thought they could rip me off for everything. Well, no, they can't. In the case I have against the U.S. government, concerning censorship, violation of rights, and discrimination, we are talking about 3 separate parts of a complicated case, where the government itself may be facilitating the crimes committed against me by way of censoring my statements. The entire case which I send to attorneys when I try to gain legal representation under a contingency agreement to file against the government really does include proof that I am a victim of conspiracy and that I am being censored. It concerns the science I myself am peddling to universities, and it includes the taxation issue I mentioned already, but it also includes original work outside of those 2 arenas. Since 1985, as example, I have studied and reported about football in the NFL and the NCAA. You would think if someone could steal this, they would have done so since then, but they still cannot figure out what I do. You cannot do what I do with power rankings, and I have written to many publications to make them aware of this. I actually explain how football works through provable relationships I discovered through a scientific examination using control groups in 1985. These, of course, are my trade secrets, and I do not plan on giving them away for free. The name of my football company is True Worth, and I have stated many times this is not an idea, but a trademark and a copyright, which gives the company a name. An idea is a description, and the title or name of anything is not a description. What's it about? Well, that is the idea, what it is about. If someone tries to say that everything has a true worth or true value, there are 2 ways to prove them false. First, Plato talked about this a long time ago in Greece, where he believed there was a real and perfect thing to represent some concept. We proved him wrong a long time ago, when we said beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There is no true worth of beauty. Plato's philosophy of Realism, which states there is a real thing behind the concept, is basic philosophy that one learns in college, and it is easily disproved. If you ask me what True Worth is, my answer is it is a trademark, a title, and a copyright. It is not an idea. This brings us to the 2nd way of killing the thought that it is an idea. In 1985, I developed The Principle of Mathematical Context, and if you understand the principle, you know there is no true value to anything, because your solution is governed by your original context of examination. In other words, the only valid way to examine anything is to search for some provable relationship between statistics, and if there is none, you have meaningless numbers.
See a Primer on the Principle Here
So, the crime would be a criminal conspiracy to defraud me of my trademark, by trying to say this is something that is a generic idea. But True Worth is not an idea. There is no calculation of true worth in my work. There never has been. If you think there is, then what is it? This is why it is proof of a crime in progress, because I have decades of archives, and they have nothing. I could easily put the 3 black bound books with all of the trade secrets in them on the judge's table to prove to the judge that this is new, unique, and original work, protected by trade secrets law. The other guy, has nothing. Trying to steal trade secrets, or trying to trick me into giving them up, is 10 years in prison. Let us leave football for the moment, however, to give the same rundown on science, another one of those things they cannot steal, because they do not understand exactly what I do. There is a difference here, though, because I am not keeping anything a secret. Each university since 2003 has been given the chance to request all work. They have a written, signed guarantee that I will answer any question, and provide anything they request for examination. No request yet. I even tell them exactly what they are missing, while providing them with a good summary of my work, several equations and graphics, and numerous calculations. The 3 most important calculations are the ones I must do to prove I have a solution for wave-particle duality specifically for the photon. The most important equations are the relativistic equations which allow everything to work, plus equation #1, which was the first equation derived in the body of work. They have equation #1, and they must request the relativistic extension. It takes a while to derive those equations, and they need an explanation, so they are told to request them. Once again, no request. In other words, the marketplace, like the NCAA and NFL, or Hollywood and Television, is much different than the university. In the marketplace, I seek an advantage to earn money. At the university, I present a solution, and this solution is not a trade secret. It is open house, with nobody coming in. This is proof that I am being kept away from a grant. Indeed it is, because there are 3 questions to ask anyone concerning this grant. The National Science Foundation (NSF) has already said I can get the grant on my own without a university, as long as I can provide facilities and a professional management team. It is my grant to get, but I really do need a university, because I am not going to put together a team alone. I offer them a joint grant opportunity.
See the NSF Letter Here
The 3 questions: 1) Why do you not request the entire relativistic solution to a longstanding problem, when it is clear the solution is complete? 2) Why do you not want the grant money, when the salary you would pay Mr. Presogna comes out of the grant itself to the university? 3) Why do you not want to be the first university to run new experiments or to write the first paper after that? Once again, the truth is obvious. The deal offered to the university is no more than the law requires. They recognize that the work is solely and wholly mine and that it is unique, my name goes on the paper when we do the research since it is my work which initiated the research or experiments we would do, and there is a right to compensation. Nothing more. In other words, it is my work entirely, and the university is being given a stake in the work. Therefore, while the Mercantilism article was easy to rip off, football and physics seem impossible to rip off. As for everything else, Hollywood is a loser. If they try to take my title, it is grand larceny. A copyright protects a work in whole and in part, and the title is a part of the work. I own the titles. All I have to do is say Cease and Desist, or criminal charges can be filed. If they change the title, and try to rewrite my work, it is called willful infringement for profit, and this can be proven over a period of years since 1982 when I first dealt with 20th Century Fox for my motion picture "The Truth About Eden," an adaptation of my 1975 book. Willful infringement for profit is criminal, and carries a penalty of 5 years in prison, so I have them coming and going. Trying to stop me from making a movie, while they change the title and try to make their version, really is criminal infringement, and it can be proven very quickly. That means there is only one thing left for anyone to steal. Yep, it is as easy as pie, like the "Fair Tax." In 2004, I wrote a book of solutions, writing 25 solutions to problems in America. Now, a solution is not an idea. A solution is the expression of an idea, but I am willing to bet money that, no matter how original those solutions are, some asshole will say they had the same idea. It is interesting to note, however, that in the football and science areas, they cannot even say they had an idea. It can be proven that they have no description upon which to write. In physics, I have been passing around the 2 original ideas I had to many people. Over 15,000 people have had access to my work, if you include the thousands that come to my science pages on my web site. Those 2 ideas lead you to a brick wall called the Initial Value Problem, and that is all anyone needs to know. You need several ideas to get past that. In other words, it can be proven they never had any idea at all. They repeat what they hear, in most cases, or they troll the internet. The origin of all work in my library is indeed me, including those ideas which only I can describe. END OF ARTICLE Mr. J.V. Presogna is the author of the published works "An Extension of Relativity," "The Principle of Mathematical Context," "The Truth About Eden," and numerous other works in several areas of endeavor, including computer programming. |