CtC gets another 'airing'

[rogfulton]

Stuart Piddas has posted a comment (he's number 24) to an article on MSN Money called 'Tax collectors trolling Facebook' in which he mentions starting CtC:
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Ta ... ebook.aspx

Also not to be missed are PaulRevere2009 (comment #15) and Liberal4Liberty (comments 78 & 80).

Try as I might, I have not been able to find any of the proof these people talk about that paying taxes is not a requirement under the law, except on their websites.

[wserra]

Try as I might, I have not been able to find any of the proof these people talk about that paying taxes is not a requirement under the law, except on their websites.

I realize this may come as a shock, but I haven't been able to find any proof on their websites either.

Welcome to Quatloos, rog.

[ASITStands]

Try as I might, I have not been able to find any of the proof these people talk about that paying taxes is not a requirement under the law, except on their websites.

I realize this may come as a shock, but I haven't been able to find any proof on their websites either.

Welcome to Quatloos, rog.

No kidding! It's also hard to find proof that any of them are actually getting away with it longer than getting an initial refund only to find out the IRS wants it back at some point.

Welcome to Quatloos! Life it good.

[Brandybuck]

If there was a way to legally avoid paying the income tax, someone would have discovered it way 1913, and the hole mortared over by Congress back in 1914.

[Famspear]

Speaking of CtC, here's the latest from Peter Hendrickson (today, Friday 4 September 2009):

Hey, warriors, here's a little project some might wish to take up: prepare language for legislation requiring that all "information return" forms contain the complete relevant statutory language on the face of the form-- so that when a payer is filling one out, he or she has ALL the relevant definitions staring at him (as does the recipient, in turn).

For instance, a W-2 would be required to say, at the relevant places, "This line is to be used to report payment of "wages" as defined at 26 USC 3401(a)-- that is, all payments not otherwise excepted in the law of remuneration to the recipient as an "employee", which includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State (as defined at 26 USC 7701(a)(10) and 26 USC 7651(1)), or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term ''employee'' also includes an officer of a corporation (as relevantly defined in the the law).".

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2156

To which my response would be: Hey, warriors, here's a little project some might wish to take up: Ask the PeterEricBlowhardMeister what happened to his petition for rehearing before the U.S. Supreme Court. Wasn't that petition denied -- back on August 17th?

[Pottapaug1938]

To which my response would be: Hey, warriors, here's a little project some might wish to take up: Ask the PeterEricBlowhardMeister what happened to his petition for rehearing before the U.S. Supreme Court. Wasn't that petition denied -- back on August 17th?

Come on, now -- if PeterPeterPumpkinEater tells the truth about his rehearing petition, his remaining sheeple will desert him en masse, and he'll have to earn a living by shoveling manure at the local zoo. The only thing we'll ever hear, from him, about that petition is something like "the Supreme Court ducked the issues raised in my petition because they know that they'd have to rule in my favor if they addressed those issues. Another CtC victory!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

[Quixote]

Also not to be missed are PaulRevere2009 (comment #15)

Posted by PaulRevere2009:

The author, Aaron Russo, goes so far as to interview one of the "master-minds" of the IRS Code, and that gentleman had a hard time explaining, or showing where in the tax code does it require Americans to pay federal taxes.

My first thought upon reading that was that PR2009 thought Russo had held a seance with Wilbur Mills. And that was before I read Dan's comment about Fannie Fox on another thread.

[The Observer]

Mills. And that was before I read Dan's comment about Fannie Flagg on another thread.

I think you meant to say "Fannie Fox." Fannie Flagg and Wilbur Mills would have been a match made in hell.

Actually her correct name was Fanne Fox.

[Quixote]

Mills. And that was before I read Dan's comment about Fannie Flagg on another thread.

I think you meant to say "Fannie Fox." Fannie Flagg and Wilbur Mills would have been a match made in hell.

Actually her correct name was Fanne Fox.

[notorial dissent]

Either way, Fannie Flagg would have chewed Wilbur up and spit him out.

[Thule]

To which my response would be: Hey, warriors, here's a little project some might wish to take up: Ask the PeterEricBlowhardMeister what happened to his petition for rehearing before the U.S. Supreme Court. Wasn't that petition denied -- back on August 17th?

Actually, I'll cover that in my new book; Cracking the Blowhard, The Fascinating Truth About Peter Hendricksons Scam.

I'm a bit stuck on chapter 1, I really don't know what to write after "It doesen't work, dumb***. And if you try it, you could get in serious trouble.".

But I still have a good chance of finishing it before Demo finishes hers.