You could certainly be a little kinder in your response. Also, you may want ask before firing because perhaps I do know something about what I'm talking about.

Concerning Section C...

Under law, it is presumed that this testing is performed with "informed consent".

How?

Because this "law" is publicly available to each human currently being tested upon and it is uncontested. (That's what the courts are for.)

When the terms of a contract are known and uncontested, it's called "acquiescence", and this implies that both parties are in agreement. Furthermore, the contract must meet the judicial requirements of "remedy" and "recourse", which would certainly not be met if they were not "informed".

So...

The public is informed because this "law" is published.

(This is why they like to say: "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."; you are expected to know all of the "law".)

Obviously, the public did not become informed because this "law" contains section C. In reality, section C is legally useless. It's only value and purpose for being there is psychological.

Why?

Like so many of the IRS laws, section C of this "law" is very deceptive because most people don't understand the concepts of acquiescence in contract law, and therefore, most people misunderstand this section (C) and would consider this law to be much more benign than it really is.

People would tend to believe that section C would mean they they would be privately, or personally informed; But this "law" does not say that. The only requirement is that they are informed. Publishing this law meets this judicial requirement.

So, the powers-that-be play upon this ignorance through confusion and allow people to draw this false conclusion (about being informed) so they find it difficult to believe that they could be tested upon without a personally addressed letter from their government. This is the only logical explanation for section C (Confusion/Deception).

Hence, I omitted section C to avoid this confusion (because that's all it's really good for).

Again...

They could have completely omitted section C and the law would still have met the test of acquiescence because it is publicly available. It does not—in itself—serve any legal purpose there. It's just there to make the law seem harmless.

By omitting section C, I certainly didn't intend on deceiving anyone, on the contrary, I intended to make the reading of the law more clear by omitting the confusing (and legally worthless) part.

On another note...

I'm also aware that all laws are not followed by the government. They basically get as many laws "passed" or published as possible to provide themselves a level of protection, but when it is not advantageous for them to make known their activities in an area, they resort to mafia tactics (JFK, for example).

So, lets try to be nice to each other and perhaps we'll make more progress and be able to let more people know about these horrible "laws".