Comments on: Absurd Tax Protester Arguments – Volume 9 – Lower Case Letters

By: Peter

Peter — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 13:14:09 +0000

SACHA, Sacha, SaChA, SACha (I wanted to get all variations down lest you not know to whom I am referring),

You said,

Peter Pappas in the flesh that writes this blog is not the legal trush PETER PAPPAS with the tax ID assigned by the Social Security Administration.

God, GOD, goD, god, save us all.

By: Sacha

Sacha — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 04:18:50 +0000

Peter, I’m afraid it’s you, me, and everyone else who are on the psychotropic drugs. We were raised in an era that has come to accept this societal norm.

I have not said that any One is not subject to taxation because the Government has used the wrong case, but that Peter Pappas in the flesh that writes this blog is not the legal trush PETER PAPPAS with the tax ID assigned by the Social Security Administration.

Of course, if you take this argument to the courts, you are over ruled and prosecuted for tax evasion – because the courts are not objective, and certainly not on “your side”; it’s part of the machine.

You use a sweeping a dramatic counter argument to negate my comment, but that is coming from the wit of what I assume is a well educated Tax Attorney who practices the endorsed flavor of the law that we’ve all come to know and love. But if you peel back the surface just a little, I think you’ll find some very interesting things down the rabbit hole.

Just because they didn’t teach you about it law school doesn’t mean it’s not on the books.

Of course all of us as Federal Citizens are subject to these tax laws. The argument Randy Lee Oliver is trying to make here is that he’s not a Federal Citizen of the United States, he’s a Common Law citizen of these united States.

Do some objective research on this, and how the 14th amendment (while doing imo very positive things in the flavor of racial equality), forever blurred the definition of Citizen. Or write me off as a nut case conspiracy hack. But all the psychotropic drugs in the world can’t change history.

By: Peter

Peter — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 12:54:51 +0000

Sacha,

Anyone who claims that he is not subject to taxation because the federal government uses the wrong case when printing his name is in dire need of psychotropic drugs.

By: Sacha

Sacha — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 03:21:20 +0000

Sorry, it’s only absurd to you because you don’t understand tax history and tax law. Legal definitions can greatly differ from Common English definitions. Rather than trying to teach you, why don’t you do some homework? Objectively. Then you will realize the absurdity lies in how the federal gov’t managed to dupe an entire nation into owing its servitude.

By: Peter

Peter — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 00:28:21 +0000

Nick,

My guess is “no.”

By: Nick

Nick — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 16:21:42 +0000

OK, that one’s a stretch.
How about this?
I noticed while doing this year’s taxes that the IRS allows a deduction for investment losses caused by scams ‘such as Ponzi schemes’.
Seeing how Social Security, as a ‘pay as you go’ system, meets the exact definition of a Ponzi scheme, could we claim the thousands of investment losses we have incurred from paying into that scheme? What form do I use? Thanks much.