PDA

View Full Version : Social Security Number



Tomasz Zygmunt
10-13-11, 07:38 PM
A Social Security Number is required to work in the United States, the territory owned by and subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States of America. Employers register as federal employers, thereby, making employees federal employees.

David Merrill
10-14-11, 12:59 AM
Employers register as federal employers?

Tomasz Zygmunt
10-14-11, 01:41 PM
Perhaps ignorant CPA's and attorneys register employer clients as federal employers thus placing them on federal territory and making their employees federal employees, employed in the Unidted States.

EZrhythm
10-14-11, 08:40 PM
Since the system acts on presumptions, isn't evidence toward the presumption that a business is a federal employer when a business applies for and receives an EIN? (Employer Identification Number)

David Merrill
10-14-11, 11:26 PM
I have no doubt you have it right Tom. I was hoping for a new and solid verification. - Like a federal employee filing form that is required for Employers to use that would be conclusive evidence that when a new employer registers with the IRS, the employer is obviously filing as a federal employee?

JohnnyCash
11-03-11, 04:04 PM
Presented for your viewing pleasure, here are the "Estimated Benefits" and "Earnings Record" I recently received from the Social Security Administration. As the trust account records show, I spent many years enriching the international banking cabal. I'm past feeling angry about that, in fact I'm happy to have learned enough about the scam to have escaped it successfully (beginning 2008). Thank You all! And as far as modern plantation wage-earners go, you can see I was a reluctant slave, quite below average. Sorry Banksters. HA!

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/1071/ssa1.jpg
http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/2252/ssa2.jpg

David Merrill
01-10-12, 01:52 AM
Thanks for showing us your success story!!

shikamaru
01-10-12, 11:55 AM
Presented for your viewing pleasure, here are the "Estimated Benefits" and "Earnings Record" I recently received from the Social Security Administration. As the trust account records show, I spent many years enriching the international banking cabal. I'm past feeling angry about that, in fact I'm happy to have learned enough about the scam to have escaped it successfully (beginning 2008). Thank You all! And as far as modern plantation wage-earners go, you can see I was a reluctant slave, quite below average. Sorry Banksters. HA!


If Social Security is a trust, a beneficiary should be able to resign and waive the benefits to terminate the trust relationship.

I'm most interested in how "the Informer" removed himself as beneficiary from the trust. Glad I have his broadcasts :).

David Merrill
01-10-12, 01:56 PM
If Social Security is a trust, a beneficiary should be able to resign and waive the benefits to terminate the trust relationship.

I'm most interested in how "the Informer" removed himself as beneficiary from the trust. Glad I have his broadcasts :).


Please isolate anything you find and link us directly to the passage; cite Minute Mark for example.


Crosstalk:


I like reading Suitor’s expression of inquiry. It puts the question to the Social Security Trust as though there is somebody there to read it. I have heard that the actual Trust indenture is in a banking envelope in a safety deposit box. When Congress makes adjustments to the original indenture a courier replaces the last schedule in the safety deposit box. So in that sense it seems silly to be talking to a zipper envelope in a safety deposit box but it makes my approach rather attractive. If you say you have a SSN, then you are the beneficiary and the government is the trustee or grantor. If you say that you do not have a SSN then there is no trust in place. The Manager of the SSI office here explained this to me many years ago. The lady at the counter wanted me arrested for wanting to get rid of my SSN. She was even annoyed that the Manager came out and explained it all to me politely.

We do not have a process to get rid of Social Security Numbers. When did you request a SSN?

When I was about fourteen.

When you wish to use your SSN, how do you do that?

I write it down or say it to somebody taking it down.

Stop doing that.

shikamaru
01-11-12, 12:20 AM
Please isolate anything you find and link us directly to the passage; cite Minute Mark for example.


The audios are in this thread:

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?452-The-Informer-James-Montgomery-Dr-Frank-Wiswall-and-more-!!

I'm not sure which one it is though.

Shuftin
01-11-12, 03:55 PM
If Social Security is a trust, a beneficiary should be able to resign and waive the benefits to terminate the trust relationship.

I'm most interested in how "the Informer" removed himself as beneficiary from the trust. Glad I have his broadcasts :).I had a link to the informer [website] with corresponding information on the old forum which was lost when it went down. From my understanding and memory, the informer discovered, possible from the IRS Code, that a SSN is composed of a nine [not ten] digit number having zero alphabetic letters. When one retires, the IRS attaches a tenth symbol, the letter "A" to the tail-end of the SSN. By doing so, the IRS converts a valid SSN into a non-valid SSN and one then becomes a beneficiary. Or words to that effect.

I wish I could remember better but maybe this will give you some direction. Then again, possibly it was the SSA rather than the IRS that attached the additional symbol "A" to the tail-end of the SSN. In either event, one loses his SSN upon retirement and one is then issued something that is not a valid SSN.

Things similar are not the same.

My knee-jerk reaction at the time of reading was: In order to stand forth and speak Truthfully saying "I have no SSN" is to simply retire. The documentation of TPTB become proof-positive that one no longer has a valid SSN.

shikamaru
01-11-12, 08:51 PM
I had a link to the informer [website] with corresponding information on the old forum which was lost when it went down. From my understanding and memory, the informer discovered, possible from the IRS Code, that a SSN is composed of a nine [not ten] digit number having zero alphabetic letters. When one retires, the IRS attaches a tenth symbol, the letter "A" to the tail-end of the SSN. By doing so, the IRS converts a valid SSN into a non-valid SSN and one then becomes a beneficiary. Or words to that effect.

I wish I could remember better but maybe this will give you some direction. Then again, possibly it was the SSA rather than the IRS that attached the additional symbol "A" to the tail-end of the SSN. In either event, one loses his SSN upon retirement and one is then issued something that is not a valid SSN.

Things similar are not the same.

My knee-jerk reaction at the time of reading was: In order to stand forth and speak Truthfully saying "I have no SSN" is to simply retire. The documentation of TPTB become proof-positive that one no longer has a valid SSN.

Here is my cluster of "the Informer" as well as James Montgomery and others of interesting note:

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?452-The-Informer-James-Montgomery-Dr-Frank-Wiswall-and-more-

IgraineS
03-03-12, 04:16 AM
Social Security age has turned into a contentious problem, as the prosperous see it as a deficit hog and the poor see it as a lifeline. It appears to be as much of a class war as it has ever been. Resource for this article: Class war between haves and have nots over raising Social Security age (http://personalmoneynetwork.com/moneyblog/2012/02/27/raising-social-security-age/). For me, it's alright.

allodial
03-06-12, 08:23 PM
Retire can mean to leave public service or the like.


1. To withdraw; to retreat; to go from company or from a public place into privacy; as, to retire from the world; to retire from notice.

2. To retreat from action or danger; as, to retire from battle.

3. To withdraw from a public station. General Washington, in 1796, retired to private life.

4. To break up, as a company or assembly. The company retired at eleven o'clock.

5. To depart or withdraw for safety or for pleasure. Men retire from the town in summer for health and pleasure. But in South Carolina, the planters retire from their estates to Charleston, or to an isle near the town.

6. To recede; to fall back. The shore of the sea retires in bays and gulfs.(Webster's 1828)

jesse james
04-04-12, 04:47 AM
Hey let me ask you guys a question .........has anybody here actually read the Social Security Act?

The reason why I ask if anybody has read the Act is because Social Security defines "state" using the federal territory description.


(e) State, United States, and citizen
For purposes of this chapter?
(1) State
The term ?State? includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
(2) United States
The term ?United States? when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
An individual who is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (but not otherwise a citizen of the United States) shall be considered, for purposes of this section, as a citizen of the United States.

Not only are the federal union state overlays included in this definition........ so are the territories and possessions.

Social security isnt hiding anything from you....you just werent inform how to read and understand law.
By participating in SS you are actively well within federal jurisdiction.

Heres more to confirm and document.

Title 5
USC : Title 5 - GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES


(13) the term ?Federal personnel? means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits).
Anybody care to guess who administers Social security?
The government of the united states thats who!
And if you are not convinced-

26usc 3101

(a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance
In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 3121 (a)) received by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121 (b))?

David Merrill
04-04-12, 11:33 PM
My suggestion is to treat the Social Security like an insurance policy. If you have already paid in for 40+ quarters then your premiums are paid. If you employer wants to deduct for SSI though, I would not quibble and I would not try to get the premiums back like with your withholdings.

I am familiar with that definition of the State and state districts formed in 1789 (http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/834/judiciaryactof1789.pdf). The real rubber meets the road if you are in contract, or not. If you endorse private credit from the Fed then you are contracting with this state. Therefore you get to be obligated to the State whatever the definition for it is.



Regards,

David Merrill.

jesse james
04-05-12, 01:24 AM
My suggestion is to treat the Social Security like an insurance policy. If you have already paid in for 40+ quarters then your premiums are paid. If you employer wants to deduct for SSI though, I would not quibble and I would not try to get the premiums back like with your withholdings.

I am familiar with that definition of the State and state districts formed in 1789 (http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/834/judiciaryactof1789.pdf). The real rubber meets the road if you are in contract, or not. If you endorse private credit from the Fed then you are contracting with this state. Therefore you get to be obligated to the State whatever the definition for it is.



Regards,

David Merrill.

Your logic Mr. Merrill............ummmm..........doesnt make sense at all.
Americans dont go to banks to apply for Social Security or a SSN...................pretty much illogical train of thought dont you think Mr. Merrill?

Americans are obligated to the state because Americans apply for a ssn through the SSA..................thats logical thinking dont you agree Mr. Merrill?
I mean who goes to a bank to apply for Social Security?
Nobody does thats who!

David Merrill
04-05-12, 01:40 AM
Your logic Mr. Merrill............ummmm..........doesnt make sense at all.
Americans dont go to banks to apply for Social Security or a SSN...................pretty much illogical train of thought dont you think Mr. Merrill?

Americans are obligated to the state because Americans apply for a ssn through the SSA..................thats logical thinking dont you agree Mr. Merrill?
I mean who goes to a bank to apply for Social Security?
Nobody does thats who!


I think you are an incompetent reader and a fully experienced foul-mouthed troll.

Maybe you would like to think of Social Security as insurance because SSI is for Social Security Insurance?

But I doubt that will raise anything from you but more requests to be banished.



P.S.

Looking at the edit timestamps, Jesse went on a rant and was rethinking that just before I quoted him. So I quoted his post and made comment just as he edited out the temper tantrum. Good enough! That is what editing is for.

David Merrill
04-05-12, 09:49 AM
I had a link to the informer [website] with corresponding information on the old forum which was lost when it went down. From my understanding and memory, the informer discovered, possible from the IRS Code, that a SSN is composed of a nine [not ten] digit number having zero alphabetic letters. When one retires, the IRS attaches a tenth symbol, the letter "A" to the tail-end of the SSN. By doing so, the IRS converts a valid SSN into a non-valid SSN and one then becomes a beneficiary. Or words to that effect.

I wish I could remember better but maybe this will give you some direction. Then again, possibly it was the SSA rather than the IRS that attached the additional symbol "A" to the tail-end of the SSN. In either event, one loses his SSN upon retirement and one is then issued something that is not a valid SSN.

Things similar are not the same.

My knee-jerk reaction at the time of reading was: In order to stand forth and speak Truthfully saying "I have no SSN" is to simply retire. The documentation of TPTB become proof-positive that one no longer has a valid SSN.

That sounds counter-intuitive. Usually when one retires, they go onto Social Security.

But I think I know what you mean, when you cite the Informer, he used a lot of counter-intuitive approaches to get some very vital points across.

David Merrill
04-05-12, 10:02 AM
Hey let me ask you guys a question .........has anybody here actually read the Social Security Act?

The reason why I ask if anybody has read the Act is because Social Security defines "state" using the federal territory description.



Not only are the federal union state overlays included in this definition........ so are the territories and possessions.

Social security isnt hiding anything from you....you just werent inform how to read and understand law.
By participating in SS you are actively well within federal jurisdiction.

Heres more to confirm and document.

Title 5
USC : Title 5 - GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES


Anybody care to guess who administers Social security?
The government of the united states thats who!
And if you are not convinced-

26usc 3101


There are three vital components to jurisdiction.

1) territorial
2) in personam
3) subject matter

Therefore if you participate in SS then you are indeed under federal jurisdiction, but only so far as matters of Social Security (subject matter jurisdiction). The Supreme Court has determined (1938) that Social Security is a valid Income Tax, but it is not the same thing as the IRS Income Tax system.

David Merrill
04-05-12, 10:36 AM
I think you are an incompetent reader and a fully experienced foul-mouthed troll.

Maybe you would like to think of Social Security as insurance because SSI is for Social Security Insurance?

But I doubt that will raise anything from you but more requests to be banished.



P.S.

Looking at the edit timestamps, Jesse went on a rant and was rethinking that just before I quoted him. So I quoted his post and made comment just as he edited out the temper tantrum. Good enough! That is what editing is for.

P.P.S.

The post that I was responding to above was a really crappy thing to say. I am sorry that I did not catch it in time to show you all. It strikes me that Jesse James is basically in pain or just surfs to ventilate a lot of hatred. I took a look for the first time at his posts around here and he is persistently antagonistic and mean to others, especially to me and what I have discovered through careful research and an astounding brain trust of suitors. I have banished him and I apologize for being too busy with other entertaining items in life to have noticed this problem before Jesse annoyed a lot of good people. I noticed by the others who had been visiting his User page that they had likely been assuming I was paying more attention; I was not. Sorry! Please forgive me.

David Merrill
04-16-12, 03:36 PM
I am starting to get it now...

Jesse James is actually JJ MacNAB (http://alina_stefanescu.typepad.com/totalitarianism_today/2004/12/beware_of_helpf.html) of Demosthenes, now Famspear fame on Quatloos. Take a look (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/dynamics/browsecategory.php?c=4).

JohnnyCash
04-16-12, 07:14 PM
Possibly. The odds over at LostHorizons.com was that Famspear was actually the Texas persona attorney Jay Adkisson (http://blogs.forbes.com/jayadkisson/) created to use at quatloos.com. See there on the right side:
About Me

Partner of the Newport Beach, California, law firm of Riser Adkisson LLP, who practices in the areas of creditor-debtor law, including creditors collections and debtor asset protection, and business planning including captive insurance company planning and litigation involving captive insurance arrangements. Current Chairman of the American Bar Association's Committee on Captive Insurance. Author of business books on asset protection, captive insurance, and equity-indexed annuities. Twice an expert witness to the U.S. Senate Finance Committee regarding tax scams and frauds. Creator of the anti-scam website Quatloos.com The creator gives his handle as sooltauq, but you'll see very few sooltauq posts. Why create a website and then hardly use it?

I think Jesse James is Jay Adkisson. That is just opinion though.

David Merrill
04-16-12, 10:45 PM
Possibly. The odds over at LostHorizons.com was that Famspear was actually the Texas persona attorney Jay Adkisson (http://blogs.forbes.com/jayadkisson/) created to use at quatloos.com. See there on the right side: The creator gives his handle as sooltauq, but you'll see very few sooltauq posts. Why create a website and then hardly use it?

I think Jesse James is Jay Adkisson. That is just opinion though.


Yep. You could have a better theory.

sensi
12-24-12, 08:19 AM
This one was given to me by the informer. enjoy!

http://daomed.org/files/taco_bell.jpg

salsero
02-12-13, 03:20 PM
David, thanks for all this great info. I have a question with regard to social security taxes, please.

At the employer/W-2 level if one is properly redeeming lawful money, is there a way to claim a refund of social secuirty taxes that have been paid? For federal income tax withholdings, one deducts lawful money redeemed on line 21 - other income but what about social security taxes - is one able to have these monies returned as well? If so, how would one place this on the form 1040? This is a question of interest - I bascially agree why bother once you already put in the 40 quarters.

Also on subcontractors - if one gets a 1099 MISC at the end of the year from a company and has properly redeemed lawful money on the total gross amount that is being reported on that 1099 MISC, is one tax EMPEMPT for the social security taxes as well as the income taxes? And if exempt from social security taxes, how would one go about placing this on the 1040 form? Would it be shown as a misc deduction on Schedule C?

I did try to look in the posts and see if I could find the answer to this - I am sorry if this info has been posted and I missed it. Tony


My suggestion is to treat the Social Security like an insurance policy. If you have already paid in for 40+ quarters then your premiums are paid. If you employer wants to deduct for SSI though, I would not quibble and I would not try to get the premiums back like with your withholdings.

I am familiar with that definition of the State and state districts formed in 1789 (http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/834/judiciaryactof1789.pdf). The real rubber meets the road if you are in contract, or not. If you endorse private credit from the Fed then you are contracting with this state. Therefore you get to be obligated to the State whatever the definition for it is.



Regards,

David Merrill.

allodial
02-12-13, 03:33 PM
Employers register as federal employers?

The application for an (IRS) employer ID # seems to the means by which they register. The SS-4.

1143

Chex
02-12-13, 04:41 PM
By by Edwin Vieira, Jr.

(2) The Social Security Act provides a striking modern parallel for such an application of a statutory "reserved-power" clause.

Although that act provides for payment of benefits, Fleming v. Nestor denied that such benefits constitute "accrued property rights"222 "The Social Security system", the Supreme Court explained,

may be accurately described as a form of social insurance * * * whereby persons gainfully employed, and those who employ them, are taxed to permit the payment of benefits to the retired and disabled, and their dependents. Plainly the expectation is that many members of the present productive work force will in turn become beneficiaries rather than supporters of the program. But each worker's benefits, though flowing from the contributions he made to the [610] national economy while actively employed, are not dependent on the degree to which he was called upon to support the system by taxation. * * * [T]he noncontractual interest of an employee covered by the Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of a holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments.

* * * [The Social-Security] program was designed to function into the indefinite future, and its specific provisions rest on predictions as to expected economic conditions which must inevitably prove less than wholly accurate, and on judgments and preferences as to the proper allocation of the Nation's resources which evolving economic and social conditions will of necessity in some degree modify.

To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of "accrued property rights" would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjusting to ever-changing conditions which it demands.***

It was doubtless out of an awareness of the need for such flexibility that Congress included in the original Act, and [611] has since retained, a clause expressly reserving to it "[t]he right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision" of the Act.

* * * That provision makes explicit what is implicit in the institutional needs of the program. * * *

We must conclude that a person covered by the Act has not such a right in benefit payments as would make every defeasance of accrued" interests violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The Constitution, the court held, does not preclude Congress from withdrawing "noncontractual" Social-Security benefits unless its action is "utterly lacking in rational justification"224 Dissenting, Justice Black correctly observed that the court had told "the contributors to this insurance fund that despite their and their employers' payments the Government, in paying the beneficiaries out of the fund, is merely giving them something for nothing and can stop doing so when it pleases.

NOT By by Edwin Vieira, Jr.

Social Security Act Cases. -- Although holding that the spending power is not limited by the specific grants of power contained in Article I, Sec. 8, the Court found, nevertheless, that it was qualified by the Tenth Amendment, and on this ground ruled in the Butler case that Congress could not use moneys raised by taxation to ``purchase compliance'' with regulations ``of matters of State concern with respect to which Congress has no authority to interfere.'' [545]

Within little more than a year this decision was reduced to narrow proportions by Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, [546] which sustained the tax imposed on employers to provide unemployment benefits, and the credit allowed for similar taxes paid to a State.

To the argument that the tax and credit in combination were ``weapons of coercion, destroying or impairing the autono of the States,'' the Court replied that relief of unemployment was a legitimate object of federal expenditure under the ``general welfare'' clause, that the Social Security Act represented a legitimate attempt to solve the problem by the cooperation of State and Federal Governments, that the credit allowed for state taxes bore a reasonable relation "to the fiscal need subserved by the tax in its normal operation,'' [547] since state unemployment compensation payments would relieve the burden for direct relief borne by the national treasury.

The Court reserved judgment as to the validity of a tax ``if it is laid upon the condition that a State may escape its operation through the adoption of a statute unrelated in subject matter to activities fairly within the scope of national policy and power.'' [548]

NOTES:
[545] Justice Stone, speaking for himself and two other Justices, dissented on the ground that Congress was entitled when spending the national revenues for the ``general welfare'' to see to it that the country got its money's worth thereof, and that the condemned provisions were ``necessary and proper'' to that end. United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 84-86 (1936).

Remember United States (v. Butler) not the country but the Federal corporation.
28 USC § 3002 - DEFINITIONS
(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

shikamaru
02-12-13, 09:13 PM
Can we get down to brass tacks what FICA is?

It is an excise tax, plain and simple.
It was a way to raise additional revenue for government without having everyone going Toussaint L'Overture on government.
Couple a benefit with a tax, that's how you slide it in.

We are all aware that payment of FICA tax goes into the general fund of government without any earmarking in any manner?

allodial
02-12-13, 11:11 PM
It might be that FICA was really meant to be paid by the employers but they figured out a way to dump it on employees. Nonetheless, from an accounting and economic standpoint FICA is very important to keep the SSA solvent (afaik about $578B in 2007). AFIK the SSA is highly solvent. If you get that the person named on the SS card is a legal entity and if you get what SSA is really in the business of doing (yeah insurance isnt the right word because insurance is technically commercial--SSA provides the something like insurance but technically non-commercially).

Its worth noting that from what I've gathered, the SSA invests all of its money in U.S. treasury securities.

Chex
02-12-13, 11:38 PM
Can we get down to brass tacks what FICA is? It is an excise tax, plain and simple.

Where is that written from shikamaru ?

FICA is nothing more than the tax provisions of the Social Security Act, as they appear in the Internal Revenue Code.

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/392/~/what-is-the-meaning-of-fica

Excise taxes are taxes paid when purchases are made on a specific good, such as gasoline. Excise taxes are often included in the price of the product. There are also excise taxes on activities, such as on wagering or on highway usage by trucks. Excise Tax has several general excise tax programs. One of the major components of the excise program is motor fuel. http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Excise-Tax

Brian
02-13-13, 03:54 AM
Can we get down to brass tacks what FICA is? It is an excise tax, plain and simple.

Where is that written from shikamaru ?

FICA is nothing more than the tax provisions of the Social Security Act, as they appear in the Internal Revenue Code.

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/392/~/what-is-the-meaning-of-fica

Excise taxes are taxes paid when purchases are made on a specific good, such as gasoline. Excise taxes are often included in the price of the product. There are also excise taxes on activities, such as on wagering or on highway usage by trucks. Excise Tax has several general excise tax programs. One of the major components of the excise program is motor fuel. http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Excise-Tax

The Social Security "contribution" from wages received by an employee was really not a savings plan, but rather, in the Supreme Court's words, "a special income tax . . . measured by wages:" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvering_v._Davis

The words "measured by" are a tip-off that a government privilege is being extended because those were the same words used to describe the corporate income tax in Flint v. Stone Tracy (1911), where the extent of the government-bestowed corporate privilege is "measured by" the corporation's net income: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_v._Stone_Tracy_Co.

The Social Security tax is two part. 1. A tax on employers for having employees (employer/employee relationship) 2. A "Special income tax" on employees as measured by wages. Half the tax is on the employer and the other half on the employee.

So what makes it so "special"? The court did not say...but the "measured by" part gives a clue.

Also in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. U.S., 295 U.S. 495 (1935) Justice Roberts statements essentially lay out the path to government intrusion. "We have held in . . . Schechter Poultry . . . that Congress has no power to regulate wages and hours of labor in a local business. If the [government] is right [in Butler], this very end may be accomplished by appropriating money to be paid to employers from the federal treasury under contracts whereby they agree to comply with certain standards fixed by federal law or by contract."

Using money substitutes other then those emitted directly by the Treasury under their exclusive money powers could certainly in my view be a taxable excised activity.

David Merrill
02-13-13, 04:56 AM
The Social Security "contribution" from wages received by an employee was really not a savings plan, but rather, in the Supreme Court's words, "a special income tax . . . measured by wages:" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvering_v._Davis

The words "measured by" are a tip-off that a government privilege is being extended because those were the same words used to describe the corporate income tax in Flint v. Stone Tracy (1911), where the extent of the government-bestowed corporate privilege is "measured by" the corporation's net income: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_v._Stone_Tracy_Co.

The Social Security tax is two part. 1. A tax on employers for having employees (employer/employee relationship) 2. A "Special income tax" on employees as measured by wages. Half the tax is on the employer and the other half on the employee.

So what makes it so "special"? The court did not say...but the "measured by" part gives a clue.

Also in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. U.S., 295 U.S. 495 (1935) Justice Roberts statements essentially lay out the path to government intrusion. "We have held in . . . Schechter Poultry . . . that Congress has no power to regulate wages and hours of labor in a local business. If the [government] is right [in Butler], this very end may be accomplished by appropriating money to be paid to employers from the federal treasury under contracts whereby they agree to comply with certain standards fixed by federal law or by contract."

Using money substitutes other then those emitted directly by the Treasury under their exclusive money powers could certainly in my view be a taxable excised activity.

Great post Brian!

shikamaru
02-13-13, 10:17 PM
Where is that written from shikamaru ?


Here. (http://www.ssa.gov/history/35acviii.html#Excise)

Also, how about this?

Helvering v. Davis (1937) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/socsec/course/readings/301us619.htm)



In Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, decided this day, ante, p. 548, we have upheld the validity of Title IX of the act, imposing an excise upon employers of eight or more. In this case, Titles VIII and II are the subject of attack. Title VIII lays another excise upon employers in addition to the one imposed by Title IX (though with different exemptions). It lays a special income tax upon employees to be deducted from their wages and paid by the employers. Title II provides for the payment of Old Age Benefits, and supplies the motive and occasion, in the view of the assailants of the statute, for [p*635] the levy of the taxes imposed by Title VIII. The plan of the two titles will now be summarized more fully.



Title VIII, as we have said, lays two different types of tax, an "income tax on employees" and "an excise tax on employers." The income tax on employees is measured by wages paid during the calendar year. ' 801. The excise tax on the employer is to be paid "with respect to having individuals in his employ," and, like the tax on employees, is measured by wages. ' 804. Neither tax is applicable to certain types of employment, such as agricultural labor, domestic service, service for the national or state governments, and service performed by persons who have attained the age of 65 years. ' 811(b). The two taxes are at the same rate. '' 801, 804. For the years 1937 to 1939, inclusive, the rate for each tax is fixed at one percent. Thereafter the rate increases 1/2 of 1 percent every three years, until, after December 31, 1948, the rate for each tax reaches 3 percent. Ibid. In the computation of wages, all remuneration is to be included except so much as is in excess of $3,000 during the calendar year affected. ' 811(a). The income tax on employees is to be collected by the employer, who is to deduct the amount from the wages "as and when paid." ' 80a(a). He is indemnified against claims and demands of any person by reason of such payment. Ibid. The proceeds of both taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way. ' 807(a). There are penalties for nonpayment. ' 807(c).

If you continue to read that Supreme Court case, you'll see the term excise pop up over and over again.
This is the Supreme Court case that upheld Social Security as constitutional.

allodial
02-14-13, 01:22 AM
Its important to understand that the plenary power of Congress might have over "territories of the United States (all of them not just one of them)" is distinct from the power of the Congress in the States. Also, consider the mailing address on the stub a SS card is attached to. Territory does not necessarily mean physical land it can refer to something more abstract. You could say that regulating coin is "Congress'" territory. If the SS card and account are associated with regulating the balance/weight of currency..then there ya go.

Chex
02-14-13, 06:07 PM
Who gives a flying fish what the tax is ............. its all fiat currency.

As far as I am concerned all of these and I am sure I missed a couple the

Accounts Receivable Tax, ,Building Permit Tax, Capital Gains Tax, CDL license Tax Cigarette Tax Corporate Income Tax Court Fines (indirect taxes), Dog License Tax,Federal Income Tax Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA) Fishing License Tax Food License Tax Fuel permit tax Gasoline Tax Hunting License Tax Inheritance Tax Interest expense Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax) Liquor Tax Local Income Tax Luxury Taxes Marriage License Tax Medicare Tax Property Tax Real Estate Tax Septic Permit Tax Service Charge Taxes Social Security Tax Road Usage Taxes (Truckers) Sales Taxes Recreational Vehicle Tax Road Toll Booth Taxes School Tax State Income Tax State Unemployment Tax (SUTA) Telephone federal excise tax Telephone federal universal service fee tax Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax Telephone state and local tax Telephone usage charge tax Toll Bridge Taxes Toll Tunnel Taxes Traffic Fines (indirect taxation) Trailer Registration Tax Utility Taxes Vehicle License Registration Tax Vehicle Sales Tax Watercraft Registration Tax Well Permit Tax Inheritance tax, estate tax, and death tax Ad valorem Capital gains tax Carbon tax Carucage Consumption tax Corporate tax Excess profits tax, Windfall profits tax Corvée Custom Danegeld Development Impact Tax Direct tax Duty Excise (e.g. fuel excise, use tax, blank media tax, natural resources consumption tax) FairTax FICA tax Franchise tax Gabel Impost Income Tax Indirect tax Inflation tax Inheritance tax (cf Allodial, Pigovian tax, Estate tax (United States), Inheritance Tax (United Kingdom).) Land value tax Payment in lieu of taxes Payroll tax Poll tax Property tax Sales tax Scutage Seigniorage Sin tax Stamp Duty Subsidy Tallage Tariff Tax Farming Tithe Tobin tax Toll bridge Toll road Toll tunnel Transfer tax Tribute Value added tax Vehicle excise duty Wealth tax Workers Compensation Tax

It is a all a fee for using private credit.

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago and our nation was the most prosperous in the world, had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world and only one parent had to work to support the family and North America was a boooooming industrial nation and now look at us all we do is eat and watch tv.

This country is all about getting you to pay taxes coupled with high usury fees for private credit.

Until congress gets their $hit together and starts doing what our constitution says to do and drive the international bankers off this North American Continent it will continue to be a burden laid upon the people who love this country to suffer the consequences daily. I have not seen any proof that the BC gives the state a pledge to our labor to pay for this private credit either.

Congress, on the other hand, has access to unlimited funding without having to tell the voters their taxes are being raised through the process of inflation. If you understand this paragraph, you understand the federal reserve system.

I am concerned we (all of them not just one of them) are toooo laid back. People are broke and their tired of the free rides and dont have a clue why this is happening.

We all need to get into court and file the petition the judge knows why your here, he/she knows this because the judge is protecting the bankruptcy for the family http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=24489 for the Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin, Lazard Brothers Bank of Paris, Israel Moses Sieff, Banks of Italy, Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam Lehman Brothers Bank of New York, Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York Chase Manhattan Bank of New York, Goldman Sachs Bank of New York using the Mandrake Mechanism the entire function of this machine is to convert debt into money. It's just that simple.

According to Black's Law Dictionary, a tax is a "pecuniary burden laid upon individuals or property owners to support the government [...] a payment exacted by legislative authority."

It "is not a voluntary payment or donation, but an enforced contribution, exacted pursuant to legislative authority" and is "any contribution imposed by government [...] whether under the name of toll, tribute, tallage, gabel, impost, duty, custom, excise, subsidy, aid, supply, or other name.

When the federal reserve bank seeks to expand its influence in new areas it must find some basis in the Constitution to justify its action.

Obviously, Constitutionality of Social Security Act: http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html

allodial
02-14-13, 06:57 PM
Money/credit tends to be private in source. In the realm of practicality, it probably morseo comes down to whether you are a source or not.

shikamaru
02-14-13, 09:48 PM
.... had absolutely no national debt, ....

Not true. In all the years of existence of the political corporation titled government of the United States, it had only one year it was out of debt (1834 - 35).

All the other years, it was in debt. In fact, that was one of its primary purposes of formation: to hold the war debts of the States.

It really began to take off after the Civil War.
You could say it, government of the United States, was a holding company.

You could say that the benefits offered by the political corporation is a way to attract constitutors .......

allodial
02-15-13, 02:44 AM
Not true. In all the years of existence of the political corporation titled government of the United States, it had only one year it was out of debt (1834 - 35).

All the other years, it was in debt. In fact, that was one of its primary purposes of formation: to hold the war debts of the States.

It really began to take off after the Civil War.
You could say it, government of the United States, was a holding company.

You could say that the benefits offered by the political corporation is a way to attract constitutors .......

Its called "prosecution of war" (ala U.S. Department of Justice).

David Merrill
02-15-13, 10:29 AM
Its called "prosecution of war" (ala U.S. Department of Justice).




The departure from justice?


The Constitution is suspended in the actual theater of war.



The ACIM Gifts of the Holy Spirit:


To Have; give all to all.
To Have Peace; teach peace to learn it.
Be Vigilant only for God and His Kingdom.

allodial
02-15-13, 01:45 PM
The departure from justice (http://constitution.org/uslaw/sal/016_statutes_at_large.pdf)? The Constitution is suspended in the actual theater of war.

1146
Theaters of war as in: CA, NV, IA, LA, OR, WA, AK, KS, MO, IL, CA, GA, CO, NY, TX, CT, NH, etc? (military-revenue districts?)


In 1775, the Continental Congress enacted the Articles of Conduct, governing the ships and men of the Continental Navy. However, soon thereafter, all of these ships were sold and the United States Navy and Marine Corps were disbanded. In July 1797, Congress, after authorizing construction of six ships, enacted the Rules for Regulation of the Navy as a temporary measure. Then, in 1800, Congress enacted a more sophisticated code adopted directly from the British Naval Code of 1749. There was little or no need for lawyers to interpret these simple codes, nor was there a need for lawyers in the uncomplicated administration of the Navy prior to the American Civil War.
During the Civil War, however, Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles named a young assistant U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia named Nathaniel Wilson to present the government's case in complicated courts-martial. Without any statutory authority, Secretary Welles gave Wilson the title of "Solicitor of the Navy Department," making him the first House counsel to the United States Navy.
By the Act of March 2, 1865, Congress authorized "the President to appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, for service during the rebellion and one year thereafter, an officer of the Navy Department to be called the 'Solicitor and Naval Judge Advocate General.'" The United States Congress maintained the billet on a year-to-year basis by amendments to the Naval Appropriations Acts. In 1870, Congress transferred the billet to a newly established Justice Department with the title of Naval Solicitor.
In 1967, Congress decided to establish the Judge Advocate General's Corps within the Department of the Navy. The legislation was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on December 8, 1967, and redesignated Navy lawyers as staff officers within the Navy, similar to physicians and chaplains. Prior to this change, all Navy lawyers were Line Naval Officers.
Prior to 2005, JAG Corps personnel primarily worked in one of three offices: Navy Legal Service Offices providing defense and legal assistance to eligible personnel; Trial Service Offices providing courts-martial prosecution, court reporting and administrative trial support; and Staff Judge Advocates providing legal advice to U.S. naval base commanders. In 2005, the Judge Advocate General of the Navy approved a pilot program which resulted in the merger of the Navy's Trial Service Offices and Staff Judge Advocates into new commands known as Region Legal Service Offices. Additionally, the JAG Corps has attorneys and paralegals on aircraft carriers, amphibious assault ships and flag ships as well as in support of Seabee battalions and special operations commands.

Goldi
02-26-13, 10:36 PM
“Although that act [SOCIAL SECURITY] provides for payment of benefits, Fleming v. Nestor denied that such benefits constitute "accrued property rights”

“The proceeds of both taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way.”

I think the cruxt of why there is no accrued property rights in contributions paid in via FICA, is because we do not understand the nature of the relation. The Social Security Administration is a bank. What happens when you make a general deposit into your account? You pass title to the money over to the bank and you become a creditor to the bank. That is NOT a good position to be in. You cannot assert an interest in money you've lent, and with FICA payments, you did so without so much as a contract for repayment plus interest. That relation needs to be adjusted to that of you being grantor and beneficiary and the SS Admin board of trustees being your fiduciaries, with all funds being placed into their custody by special deposit for specific purpose. You know those on Social Security payments are considered "auxilliary beneficiaries", right? That comes out of 39 FR 9947.

Chex
02-26-13, 11:43 PM
You need to read the POMS and contract the SSA has with you, you know the terms and agreements you signed up for "accrued property rights”

gdude
02-27-13, 08:01 AM
You need to read the POMS and contract the SSA has with you, you know the terms and agreements you signed up for "accrued property rights”

Chex, Could you tell us exactly is that info located? I opened the link and there is at least 40 different chapters. Thanks.

Chex
02-27-13, 03:18 PM
I wish I had the answers (http://www.google.com/search?q=The+Social+Security+Administration&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-ContextMenu&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7MEDA#hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us%3AIE-ContextMenu&rlz=1I7MEDA&sclient=psy-ab&q=The+Social+Security+Administration+poms+what+is+ it&oq=The+Social+Security+Administration+poms+what+is +it&gs_l=serp.3..33i29.2320.7941.0.8310.16.16.0.0.0.0. 282.3130.0j10j6.16.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.4.psy-ab.QjvIkmMFgkA&pbx=1&fp=1&biw=1007&bih=626&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&cad=b&sei=ZxwuUdX-JIegrAH5kYDIBA)you were looking for gdude.

I did not get the contract (http://www.cjhenrylaw.com/resources/ssa-bureaucracy/)when I was 14 when the card came in the mail.

I don’t know much about the hotel California contract either but I do agree with Richard M. Salsman (http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardsalsman/2011/09/27/social-security-is-much-worse-than-a-ponzi-scheme/).

Maybe he might have some insight. I hope you find what your looking for and let us know.

We learn something new (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?791-Redeeming-Lawful-Money-on-Daily-Paul&p=9723&viewfull=1#post9723)everyday.

Chex
11-07-14, 09:54 PM
A Social Security Number is required to work in the United States, the territory owned by and subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States of America. Employers register as federal employers, thereby, making employees federal employees.

And the worries keep coming Fw Fw Fw Fw email.

Before reading the information below, I'd like to share an incident that happened to me a couple months ago at a Walgreens. My husband had a new prescription that cost over $200. I have the Balance Rewards card from Walgreens, which honors prescriptions as well as other purchases. So, I asked for the Balance Rewards for this prescription to be added to my Rewards account.

The pharmacist said she couldn't because I was paying for it with an entitlement. I explained that we have never been on any kind of entitlement program. She stated that Social Security and Medicare are entitlements. I tried not to come unglued, but told her nicely that my husband and I had earned our Social Security and Medicare with money paid into these accounts each and every payday. She said she understood, but it was now called an entitlement, and I couldn't get the Rewards points. I could care less about the Rewards points, but was livid that the government now called Social Security (that we paid into all our lives) an entitlement!

To be fair to Walgreens, the pharmacist said that this was a federal law -- that no one on entitlement can benefit from those payments in any way...getting reward points. Wow! The government has their hands in everything! Anyway, now please read the item below...
If you get any Social Security at all in any manner, you might want to read. Did you know this?

Unfortunately most did not, and I am one of those whose Social Security funds are direct deposited to my bank, thus, I never see the checks. Once again, our beloved congressmen are playing fast and loose with vernacular. What motive did they have for changing the name of our Social Security? I’m sure they have a plan, and it won't be to our betterment.

Here we go. JUST REALIZED THAT WITH REQUIRED AUTO DEPOSIT, I NEVER GET TO SEE THE CHECK..... ALERT EVERYONE YOU KNOW. THIS AFFECTS ALL OF US.* *Subject:* SOCIAL SECURITY becomes FEDERAL BENEFIT CHECK. Have you noticed the Social Security check is now referred to as a "Federal Benefit Payment"? I'll be part of the one percent to forward this. I am forwarding it because it touches a nerve in me, and I hope it will in you. Please keep passing it on until everyone in our country has read it...

The government is now referring to our Social Security checks as a Federal Benefit Payment. This isn't a benefit. It is earned income! Not only did we all contribute to Social Security but our employers did too. It totaled 15% of our income before taxes. If you averaged $30K per year over your working life, that's close to $180,000 Invested in Social Security.

If you calculate the future value of your monthly investment in social security ($375/month, including both you and your employers contributions) at a meager 1% Interest rate compounded monthly, after 40 years of working you'd have more than $1.3+ million dollars saved! This is your personal investment.
Upon retirement, if you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $39,318 per year, or $3,277 per month. That's almost three times more than today's average Social Security benefit of $1,230 per month, according to the Social Security Administration ( Google it - it's a fact).

And your retirement fund would last more than 33 years (until you're 98 if you retire at age 65)! I can only imagine how much better most average-income people could live in retirement if our government had just invested our money in low-risk interest-earning accounts.

Instead, the folks in Washington pulled off a bigger Ponzi scheme than Bernie Madoff ever did. They took our money and used it elsewhere. They forgot (Knew) that it was OUR money they were taking. They didn't have a referendum to ask us if we wanted to lend the money to them. And they didn't pay interest on the debt they assumed. And recently, they've told us that the money won't support us for very much longer. But is it our fault they misused our investments? And now, to add insult to injury, they're calling it a benefit, as if we never worked to earn every penny of it. Just because they borrowed the money, doesn’t mean that our investments were a charity!

Let's take a stand. We have earned our right to Social Security and Medicare. Demand that our legislators bring some sense into our government. Find a way to keep Social Security and Medicare going, for the sake of that 92% of our population who need it.

*Then call it what it is: Our Earned Retirement Income.* 99% of people won't forward this. Will you? *You can bet I WILL!* I THINK WE SHOULD DEMAND THAT THEIR SALARIES AND RETIREMENTS BE CALLED FEDERAL BENEFIT PAYMENTS. THIS WOULD BE MORE HONEST THAN WHAT THEY HAVE DONE TO OUR SOCIAL SECURITY.

The End

Brian
11-07-14, 11:55 PM
SoSo Security is not a retirement fund. It is a tax. The payment of SoSo Security amounts are a benefit paid out if you are lucky enough to live to that point. CONgress could end the tax and the benefit tomorrow if they wanted and not be responsible for anything (except their jobs and the blood in the streets).

"The proceeds of both taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal revenue taxes generally, and are not ear-marked in any way"
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/301/619.html

xparte
12-01-14, 03:07 AM
When one is called MR that's presumptive jurisdiction One,s requirement in a fictional jurisdiction, is a $0cial $ecuritized number for Tracking All Mr /Ms registered employee fictions Any Securitization is for debt and or default backed with insurance bonds benefits are for state not estate . Now how u handle fiction is made trollproff plain, David Merrill shares facts that can be to ones education or embarrassment be graceful 2 what u think is just a random claim.

David Merrill
12-01-14, 09:37 PM
If you averaged $30K per year over your working life, that's close to $180,000 Invested in Social Security.


I recall from Are You Lost at C?


"A cardinal principle, in which the practice of admiralty courts differs from that of courts of common law, permits the parties to a suit to prosecute and defend upon their rights as such rights exist at the institution of the action; the assignment of a right of action being deemed to vest in the assignee all the privileges and remedies possessed by the assignor..."


So to me, at least to me SSI is insurance. Maybe you have overpaid your premiums?

Listen to how they treated me. (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImdDBMWmIwR3JONTQ)

To endorsers I am sure that SSI is a tax, just as is the Income Tax. You pay in according to how much you earn. I understand it as insurance premiums and old age insurance. I do not need pay in any more because they don't care how much you pay, only how long (40 quarters = 10 years) you paid the premiums.

But you might have to care. I cannot account for what is between your ears.



P.S. I like to remind you all that I do not have a Social Security Number.

Chex
12-01-14, 10:24 PM
However since the United States did not commence the action against this Claimant as demonstrated by this courts own record (see Certificate of Search Exhibit D), Claimants’ position is dispositive.

Where and how does one get a Certificate of Search?

And

The REAL PARTY IN INTEREST is not the de jure "United States of America" or "State," but "The Bank" and "The Fund." (22
U.S.C.A. 286, et seq.).

(22 U.S.C.A. 286, et seq.) Is this 22 U.S. Code § 611 – Definitions http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/611 ?

(m) The term “United States”, when used in a geographical sense, includes the several States, the District of Columbia, the Territories, the Canal Zone, the insular possessions, and all other places now or hereafter subject to the civil or military jurisdiction of the United States;

Chex
12-02-14, 04:31 PM
"Our job is in tax administration, we’re not the tax policy people.” (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2014/12/01/irs-commissioner-on-the-agencys-biggest-challenge-its-a-serious-problem/)

The interplay and fallout are a bit complicated. Let's start with the coming pain. The confusion mentioned by IRS Commissioner John Koskinen in a speech he gave largely has to do with a few factors, including a lack of budget for enough people to process returns and the implementation of individual mandates and tax credits in the Affordable Care Act. But that's not where the biggest pain for businesses resides.

Now it’s a tax and you’re charged for it. (http://www.inc.com/erik-sherman/you-re-about-to-get-screwed-by-taxes-thanks-to-immigration.html)

ManOfTheStreet
02-02-15, 06:32 AM
I read somewhere recently all a corporation needed to do was post public notice they were not doing business within the territory of the US in order to not have to comply with the federal regulations. Would this work instead of corporations needing to go offshore?

David Merrill
02-02-15, 07:44 AM
I read somewhere recently all a corporation needed to do was post public notice they were not doing business within the territory of the US in order to not have to comply with the federal regulations. Would this work instead of corporations needing to go offshore?

Welcome ManOfTheStreet! You might have developed quick insight. I assume your moniker is Man of Wall Street!

Crosstalk from the brain trust:


David,

Would it be possible to re-claim your ancestors lands as I would agree to be a tenant and help you rent wall street (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIt-uicUAII) back to the banks?





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIt-uicUAII


I served the Original Bill of Exchange (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImcXBZczI2UVVSV2c/view?usp=sharing) on Richard GRASSO, and therefore this is already accomplished. The estate was preserved by George WASHINGTON too, at the end of the Revolutionary War.


22322233

These shots are from (VAN PELT) Milestone Park in Brooklyn, and the Brooklyn Historical Society.

xparte
04-29-15, 08:48 PM
The world has two sets of books formed on fiction no person can harm another person the logistics are created for a illogical purpose. WEALTH AND POWER are logical for any NATION how its archived is the same as how its applied . Its application depends on the beneficiary not on MR? One who calls his self AMERICAN has set his own stage following the script is in the contract. logic isn't what a Man thinks or says its what he cant defend.

xparte
04-29-15, 09:57 PM
A Mr is entitlement a banishment the same This NAME [JESSE JAMES] that,s illogical yet what,s logical is calling ones self a outlaw or MR Pretence the embellishment of any person is a very tragic or strategic role.Any and all offence is far to presumptive for the despondent and one as patriotic-al and pathological as YOU. Gunfighters & piano players, the logistics is that ownership don't make a Man a pianist or a Gun neither does a NAME