endorsing and SS.......a big question!

[JohnnyCash]

'smatter J? Lost your connection to Iowa? I was hoping you'd return for more humiliation.

And I wanted to address your suggestion that I'm only successful because of no SSA reporting. If this were true, it suggests a fairly easy route out of taxation. One could simply stop working for employers & clients that issue W2s and 1099s. In fact wouldn't employees flock to the first company that withheld no taxes and issued no W2s? Of course. But there is another avenue of reporting you're overlooking, and it's brought down many criminals when authorities couldn't find enough other evidence to convict. BANKS.

He doesn't have it exactly right but here's a little piece by George Mercier that helped me understand how BANKS fit into TAXATION:

So what happens during these Willful Failure to File trials is that:

1. The Intelligence Division of the IRS surveys the local banks in the vicinity of the tax protester, and obtains copies of the protester's signature card and financial transactions statements from the bank.

2. At the time the U.S. Attorney requests the Judge to sign the Summons, the Judge has been presented with your bank account information. So now during the prosecution the Federal Judge is sitting up there on the bench with your agreement with the King in front of him while the tax protester argues:

"Well, Judge, the Fourth Amendment says..."
"Judge, the Fifth Amendment says I don't gotta..."

Are you beginning to see why the Judge is prone to experience frustration and blurt out "the Constitution does not apply here!"?

Meanwhile, the Judge is ignoring all Constitutionally related arguments and denying all motions.

If you would go back to your bank and ask the manager to show you your signature card again, in small print you will see the words:

"The undersigned hereby agrees to abide by all of the Rules of this Bank."

Have you ever asked to see a copy of the bank rules? If you have, you will read and find out that you agreed to abide by all of the administrative rulings of the Secretary of the Treasury, among many other things.

What is really happening in these Willful Failure to File prosecutions is that the Judge is operating on the penal clause to a civil contract. And since you have agreed to be bound by Title 26, what difference does it make whether or not Title 26 was ever enacted by the Congress? A contract does not have to be enacted by Congress -- in whole or in part -- in order to make it enforceable.

As for the actual taxation itself, what happens is that the King creates a "juristic personality" at the time you open your bank account. And it is that juristic personality (its income and assets) that the King's Agents are "excising" back to the King. But in any event, the taxing power of the Congress attaches by contract or use of the King's property. The Congress does not have the jurisdiction to use the police powers to raise revenue.

That is the proper way (the ideal Alice in Wonderland way actually) to collect taxes, and that is the procedure by which Federal Judges are enforcing the law -- not by ruling over gestapo Star Chambers.
http://www.14th-amendment.com/Miscellaneous/Articles/Invisible_Contracts/The_Armen_Condo_Letter_by_George_Mercier.htm
As many NON-taxpayers have bank accounts, we now know it takes more than just having a bank account to create a liability. The law (and even the currency itself) makes a distinction between lawful money & legal tender. David Merrill & company have shown that difference matters when it comes to income tax liability. There must be a way around an excise, and the saving to suitors clause required that remedy be written into the Federal Reserve Act. And there it is in section 16 "They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at ... any Federal Reserve bank (http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section16.htm)."

I redeem lawful money, J. That's what I deposit in the bank accounts I use. That's why I've been a successful NON-taxpayer for over four years. It's game over J. You've lost. Time for you to end the deception game & come clean.

[jesse james]

'smatter J? Lost your connection to Iowa? I was hoping you'd return for more humiliation.

And I wanted to address your suggestion that I'm only successful because of no SSA reporting. If this were true, it suggests a fairly easy route out of taxation. One could simply stop working for employers & clients that issue W2s and 1099s. In fact wouldn't employees flock to the first company that withheld no taxes and issued no W2s? Of course. But there is another avenue of reporting you're overlooking, and it's brought down many criminals when authorities couldn't find enough other evidence to convict. BANKS.

He doesn't have it exactly right but here's a little piece by George Mercier that helped me understand how BANKS fit into TAXATION:

As many NON-taxpayers have bank accounts, we now know it takes more than just having a bank account to create a liability. The law (and even the currency itself) makes a distinction between lawful money & legal tender. David Merrill & company have shown that difference matters when it comes to income tax liability. There must be a way around an excise, and the saving to suitors clause required that remedy be written into the Federal Reserve Act. And there it is in section 16 "They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at ... any Federal Reserve bank (http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section16.htm)."

I redeem lawful money, J. That's what I deposit in the bank accounts I use. That's why I've been a successful NON-taxpayer for over four years. It's game over J. You've lost. Time for you to end the deception game & come clean.
Your logic is wrong.............you are only finding what you want to hear and taking it out of context to fit your excuse.
You'll find the excise thats the "privilege" at 26USC 3111. 3111 specifically tells you what the excise is and thats someone participating in Social Security whos earning 3121(a) "wages" in respect to 3121(b) "employment".


(a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on every employer an excise tax, with respect to having individuals in his employ, equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 3121(a)) paid by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121(b))

Use some logic!
Logic says if the employer is taxed an excise tax for having an employee earning 3121(a) "wages" in respect to 3121(b) "employment" then the act of participating in Social Security by the employee is an excise itself.
Before Social Security was enacted was working for someone an "excise". Since when was working for a living considered a "privilege"?

Section 16 of the reserve act has nothing at all to do with the imposition........we went over this with our discussion of you fitting the medical description of "delusional".
The imposition is located in the Social Security statutes then drips into chapter 24 under 3401(a) "wages" to clue the astute thinker in comprehending what going on.

[JohnnyCash]

HA! Very funny jesse. It seems you don't like to be shown you're wrong. You know, many here have far surpassed my four-year record of success against bankster theft. They're just not as "in-your-face" about it as I am. As you are the internet's most prolific supporter of misapplied taxation (under multiple usernames) I rather enjoy it.

Social Security is an optional tax. It's also a very bad investment. I no longer participate. I don't have a Social Security number. See here (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?461-Social-Security-Number&p=6123&viewfull=1#post6123).

You've been shown to be a repeated liar, Jesse. To my thinking a psychopathic liar. All that remains is to identify which type: Identifying Different Psychopaths (http://dont-tread-on.me/?p=12005)

[Binbokusai Yagyuu]

' There must be a way around an excise (tax).


How might You have come to that conclusion .... ???

I pay an Excise Tax to the Federal Gov't on say, Tires, and Alcohol ...
there is " no way around " ...

why would the taxation we are speaking of here be different ..??

bye the bye ..
I met George Mercier before his death
careful how much credence you give to his legal "opinions", as that is exactly what they were

George himself, was a borderline nut case
read some of his Court filings ..:rolleyes:

[JohnnyCash]

Jay? posing as an Asian now? Yes, many items are excised. You can get around the liquor tax by brewing your own or befriending a winemaker. Smokers can grow tobacco or roll their own. Likewise, the elite bankers couldn't excise the currency and require everyone to use it. Legally, an option had to be allowed. Lawful money is your excise-free option out of central banking enslavement. Of course this currency scam wasn't setup overnight, it happened over time by slow degrees. And thanks for all the clues.

Quatloo - a fictional currency
Federal Reserve note - a fictional currency

And please continue. This thread is developing into a Planet Merrill for Dummies.

[Binbokusai Yagyuu]

. You can get around the liquor tax by brewing your own or befriending a winemaker. Smokers can grow tobacco or roll their own.

Likewise, the elite bankers couldn't excise the currency and require everyone to use it. Legally, an option had to be allowed. .[/I]


I will continue by asking you to make sense out of your incongruous statements ...

what might be the Statutory Remedy.... in " rolling your own " .. ???

[JohnnyCash]

And I will continue by asking if you'd like me to take a poll?

Who here thinks Binbokusai is quatloser jesse?

Who here is the liar?

http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/808/1934redeemable20.pdf

[shikamaru]

I will continue by asking you to make sense out of your incongruous statements ...

what might be the Statutory Remedy.... in " rolling your own " .. ???

What JohnnyCash has stated is correct. If you produce your own stuff, this avoids the stream of commerce. This is tax avoidance and not tax evasion.

If you are buying, selling, or trading using FRNs or presumed to be operating in the public interest, expect government to demand their cut.

If you "roll your own" its without statute law. Not everything falls under statute.

In fact, many bring themselves under statutes by their own actions.

Many times remedy can be found by avoidance.

[Binbokusai Yagyuu]

You have misunderstood my presupposition, Shik ...

Our friend Johnny has stated " Likewise, the elite bankers couldn't excise the currency and require everyone to use it. Legally, an option had to be allowed

therefore >>


The principle of legality is the legal ideal that requires all law to be clear, ascertainable and non-retrospective. It requires decision makers to resolve disputes by applying legal rules that have been declared beforehand, and not to alter the legal situation retrospectively by discretionary departures from established law. It is closely related to legal formalism and the rule of law and can be traced from the writings of Feuerbach, Dicey and Montesquieu.

There are no " Formal Rules " for avoidance, it is not a Statutory Answer as regards " Legally, an option had to be allowed "

[shikamaru]

You have misunderstood my presupposition, Shik ...

Our friend Johnny has stated " Likewise, the elite bankers couldn't excise the currency and require everyone to use it. Legally, an option had to be allowed

therefore >>


The principle of legality is the legal ideal that requires all law to be clear, ascertainable and non-retrospective. It requires decision makers to resolve disputes by applying legal rules that have been declared beforehand, and not to alter the legal situation retrospectively by discretionary departures from established law. It is closely related to legal formalism and the rule of law and can be traced from the writings of Feuerbach, Dicey and Montesquieu.

There are no " Formal Rules " for avoidance, it is not a Statutory Answer as regards " Legally, an option had to be allowed "

Apologies.

[jesse james]

Johnny doesnt really know how to reply to this does he?
Hes stumped, but will reply yet with his typical conspiracy reply.

[Binbokusai Yagyuu]

I am hoping that Johnny will reply very soon..

I need to purchase 4 automobile tires, and I need to know the S.S.S.S. (Sacrosanct Super Secret Squirrel) Legal Remedy...

before I have to pay $25/ Tire in excise tax

P.S.

Johnny ...

in case you run out of Fingers, that is $100 in Cash
I will give You $50, if I may avoid paying $100 in excise tax

more than fair, isn't it ...;)

[JohnnyCash]

jesse, does your mother know of your manga habit and your sock puppet known as "Binbokusai?"

The principle of legality is the legal ideal that requires all law to be clear, ascertainable and non-retrospective.
Yes, that's a nice ideal. Too bad Title 26 doesn't follow it. I mean, tens of thousands of pages on taxation, and they don't even define the core term of it all ... INCOME. Hiding the 8-ball.

Yes, legally an option had to be allowed, and many of us here are exercising that remedy. Successfully. Including documented proof. We win. You lose. To quote from the opening page of this site:

The term 'saving to suitors' comes from the Judiciary Act of 1789 as you see on the banner. It is because of such foundation in law that in 1913 when Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act it was required that they write the remedy (http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/3011/12usc411pre1934.jpg) from the new elastic currency into the Act. In context you should keep in mind that the charter for the Fed banks was for a twenty year term (http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/267/charterexpiressmall.jpg), so we found that the banks using Fed notes were preparing to run the Fed in 1933 and you have most likely already heard of this landmark year because of FDR's Bankers' Holiday, which opened the Fed to contracting in a new trust (http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/4556/governmentbondslarge.jpg) with the people in general. The 1913 remedy had to be amended (http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/7039/12usc411.jpg) to accommodate FDR's simultaneous gold seizure (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_TWA_Collections.jpg).

All in all though, your remedy is still written into the law at Title 12 U.S.C. §411. To verify that, click here (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00000411----000-.html) and also notice the Notes.
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/index.php

[Binbokusai Yagyuu]

You ...

entered into a Contractural obligation regarding Title 26, when You filed Your FIRST Income Tax " Return "

[Binbokusai Yagyuu]

Johnny ..

Let's get back to the excise tax on my Tires , before You confuse the Issue ..

Where is MY REMEDY

[jesse james]

Johnny ..

Let's get back to the excise tax on my Tires , before You confuse the Issue ..

Where is MY REMEDY
Actually you enter the obligation to title 26, as far as a 1040 is concerned, when you voluntarily participate in Social Security.
The tax at 26USC 3101 is one tax imposed by Title 26
Lets not forget 26USC 6011.


§ 6011. General requirement of return, statement, or list
(a) General rule
When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every person required to make a return or statement shall include therein the information required by such forms or regulations.

Is not 3101 a tax (any tax) imposed by Title 26?
Sure is!
So Johnny wheres that imposition found in Title 26 for having fiat in your pocket?

[Binbokusai Yagyuu]

there is a lot of thought on this ..

not that I necessarily conflict with Your view

still looking to get out of my excise tax

[jesse james]

there is a lot of thought on this ..

not that I necessarily conflict with Your view

still looking to get out of my excise tax
First obsticle in getting out of the excise associated with the 1040 is coming to terms that Social Security is the "excise" activity.
See 26USC 3111.

§ 3111. Rate of tax
(a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance
In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on every employer an excise tax, with respect to having individuals in his employ, equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 3121 (a)) paid by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121 (b))—

Now understand the employer is being imposed an excise (federal privilege) for an employee participating in Social Security by earning 3121(a) "wages" in respect to 3121(b) "employment".
The federal privilege is in respect to "employment" by definition.
Before Social Security was ever enacted the employer was never imposed an excise for having employees until they earned "wages" defined by Social Security. And to top it off the employee before Social Security kept 100% of his earnings.

[Binbokusai Yagyuu]

Sorry, Jesse ..

I am simply concerned with our new friend " johnny"
getting Me out of paying Excise Tax on My tires

Like he said ...

" there must be Remedy "

Soooooo...

I'm LOOKING FOR IT

[jesse james]

Sorry, Jesse ..

I am simply concerned with our new friend " johnny"
getting Me out of paying Excise Tax on My tires

Like he said ...

" there must be Remedy "

Soooooo...

I'm LOOKING FOR IT
Thats ok Binbokusai..............nothing to be sorry about.
I understand your concern for the challenged folks.

[Chex]

Binbokusai Yagyuu go buy your tires and use this form (http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f720.pdf)for use in your small business deduction for your small business, here (http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=99517,00.html)are the guidelines. If you have any questions about the form read Specific Instructions Box 1. most of all don't forget to sign the form.

[Goldi]

"Do you happen to have an example of an affidavit rebutting the presumptions for SS taxes that you could post?" Yeah, give the employer an affidavit that pursuant to Title 5 Section 552, you do not give permission to allow disclosure of any personal financial information to any 3rd party. Have it notarized and tell the employer that this is his "out" for the necessity of doing any reporting to any revenue agency. The employer needs to make a copy of that affidavit and send it in to the IRS and the state taxing agency...and YOU'RE OUT.

[jesse james]

"Do you happen to have an example of an affidavit rebutting the presumptions for SS taxes that you could post?" Yeah, give the employer an affidavit that pursuant to Title 5 Section 552, you do not give permission to allow disclosure of any personal financial information to any 3rd party. Have it notarized and tell the employer that this is his "out" for the necessity of doing any reporting to any revenue agency. The employer needs to make a copy of that affidavit and send it in to the IRS and the state taxing agency...and YOU'RE OUT.
Also, cite ADMINISTRAtIVE REGULATION 301.6109-1(d)

(d) Obtaining a taxpayer identifying number?(1) Social security number. Any individual required to furnish a social security number pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section shall apply for one, if he has not done so previously, on Form SS?5, which may be obtained from any Social Security Administration or Internal Revenue Service office. He shall make such application far enough in advance of the first required use of such number to permit issuance of the number in time for compliance with such requirement. The form, together with any supplementary statement, shall be prepared and filed in accordance with the form, instructions, and regulations applicable thereto, and shall set forth fully and clearly the data therein called for. Individuals who are ineligible for or do not wish to participate in the benefits of the social security program shall nevertheless obtain a social security number if they are required to furnish such a number pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.

Heres (b)-

(b) Requirement to furnish one's own number?(1) U.S. persons. Every U.S. person who makes under this title a return, statement, or other document must furnish its own taxpayer identifying number as required by the forms and the accompanying instructions. A U.S. person whose number must be included on a document filed by another person must give the taxpayer identifying number so required to the other person on request. For penalties for failure to supply taxpayer identifying numbers, see sections 6721 through 6724. For provisions dealing specifically with the duty of employees with respect to their social security numbers, see ?31.6011(b)-2 (a) and (b) of this chapter (Employment Tax Regulations). For provisions dealing specifically with the duty of employers with respect to employer identification numbers, see ?31.6011(b)-1 of this chapter (Employment Tax Regulations).

In order for the requirment to file a 1040 you first earn "wages". In order to earn "wages" (requirement to furnish one own number) you must first have to authorize the employer to treat your earnings as taxable "wages" and withhold accordingly. This magical document is a form W4 and requires your signiture meaning the W4 is not mandatory. Earning taxable "wages" is not mandatory.
The Social Security Act has no mandatory participation clause in the Act and thus why ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION 301.6109-1(d) has verbage to that effect.

Thanks for chiming in Goldi!

Theres a particular person on this forum who is dead set against me and beleives, for some odd reason, I'm a disinformationist from the "banking cabal".
He is the way he is because I dont beleive in merrills theory of fiat being the cause of taxation nor in pete hendrickson theory of the government employee stance.
To this day this person cannot procure any statutory evidence, to the likes of 26usc 3101 and 26usc 3402 for participating in Social Security, that easily explains why earnings are taxable.
You'll see what I mean when he chimes in blabbering his ego to no end.

[Goldi]

"I dont beleive in merrills theory of fiat being the cause of taxation" - Jesse james, I do believe it. I believe a secret lien arises when you use their FRN's with a naked signature indorsement. A bifurcated title arises on everything you purchase with FRNs. But that is not what occurs on the surface. They have deftly hidden the real underlying relation in debtor/creditor jargon within the statutes. If nearly 100 percent of taxes goes to paying the interest on the bonds that are generated as a result of the currency that is printed, then there lies your "tax liability". I think you might be confusing FICA with federal income tax liability.

[JohnnyCash]

Goldi, can you upload a sanitized scan of that affidavit/letter for us?

[Goldi]

No, but the terminology was provided in a previous post. You have to do it under a notary seal.

[jesse james]

"I dont beleive in merrills theory of fiat being the cause of taxation" - Jesse james, I do believe it. I believe a secret lien arises when you use their FRN's with a naked signature indorsement. A bifurcated title arises on everything you purchase with FRNs. But that is not what occurs on the surface. They have deftly hidden the real underlying relation in debtor/creditor jargon within the statutes. If nearly 100 percent of taxes goes to paying the interest on the bonds that are generated as a result of the currency that is printed, then there lies your "tax liability". I think you might be confusing FICA with federal income tax liability.
Goldie ....yes FICA is the taxes associated with participating in Social Security. However, by participating in Social Security you are imposed the 3402 imposition as well.
Go read section 3401(a) of title 26 and tell me you dont see Social Security written anywhere in that section. What you'll find is that there are 22 exclusions to 3401(a) "wages". Roughly 20 of those exclusions come directly from Social Security, 3121(b) "employment" to be exact. What it means is that what Social Security excludes from the 3121(b) "employment" is also excluded from 3401(a) "wages".
Social Security by definition to 3121(b) "employmeny" and 3121(a) "wages" is dictating what is and what is not 3401(a) "wages". So what Social Security disqualifies to earn credits towards benefits does not qualify as taxable 3401(a) "wages".
So the next question is if you dont participate in Social Security at all then you are not crediting your SS account towards SS benefits. Therefore the rules of SS as a whole have NO effect on your earnings period. If theres no respect to 3121(b) "employment" then chapter 24 has no effect in deeming your earnings as 3401(a) "wages" or not for that matter!
No W3 reporting takes effect!

[jesse james]

No, but the terminology was provided in a previous post. You have to do it under a notary seal.
Ohhhhh watch out Goldie......... he'll accuse you of being a bankster minnion or a quatlooser if you dont supply him a photo.
As if his opinion is worth anything at all!

[Goldi]

jesse james, have you reviewed the thread called "exactly what does the IRS agent think?" on this forum?

[jesse james]

jesse james, have you reviewed the thread called "exactly what does the IRS agent think?" on this forum?
No, I dont give any credence to this site at all. Not when the sites premise is wrong.
Participating in Social Securitry and being paid in any medium, including gold or silver or lawful money, isnt going to stop the W3 reporting to credit the SS account. You can be paid in cow manure and you will still get a W3 transmittal sent to the SSA listing amounts paid.
The irs uses the information from the SSA (the W3 reporting) to update its database.
Stop the reporting (dont participate) and the irs has absolutely nothing to base any liability or assessment on.
Heck stop participating and you dont earn "wages" either!

Besides just what do you think the IRS agent is going to think when you argue an erronous premise?

[Goldi]

On that thread it shows proof of people getting refunds when they have shown the proper indorsements on "income" checks. So the W-2,3,4 stuff makes no difference. They can report until the cows come home. If you can prove your intent to use only lawful money by way of a restricted indorsement on the back of the paycheck and destroy your purported tax liability, I think your premise needs to be reconsidered.

[Goldi]

Now, take THIS into consideration. Back about 6 months ago I was asked to facilitate the sale of some precious metals. I went to a preferred vendor, one who I had done business with, and the deal was struck. My friend mailed the metals to the vendor and I was asked to assist with the wire transfer details. I told the vendor to place on the "beneficiary instructions" line of the wire transfer document that the transfer is being made in 100% lawful money. The woman on the phone said, "well that's a first"...I said "I'm sure it is." The next day I get a call from her and she says "our lawyers have instructed us that we cannot do what you ask with regard to the lawful money notation and that we have to cancel the transaction if you will not agree". Now, this was a 5 figure transaction. So you tell me...why would the lawyers nix this simple little notation on a wire transfer document to the detriment of a 5 figure transaction if "there is nothing to this" and the whole premise is bull sh@t ????????? Now I know why they did that, but the point of the matter is that the lawyers know what it means too.

[David Merrill]

Excellent point.

Please explain why they could not let it go!

[Goldi]

Excellent point.

Please explain why they could not let it go!

Because the vendor is licensed to operate in that fictional venue and cannot be compelled to deal in lawful money from their end. IOW I cannot compel anyone to deal in lawful money, all I can do is deal in it from my end.

[jesse james]

Because the vendor is licensed to operate in that fictional venue and cannot be compelled to deal in lawful money from their end. IOW I cannot compel anyone to deal in lawful money, all I can do is deal in it from my end.
Dont go flying off the handle Goldie......theres more to the story isnt there.
I've read on here that banks dont like the lawful money thingy either and hand out fiat anyway.
Just how is the transaction being processed?
Where you trying to pay cash to skirt around the reporting requirement?
Seems there is a reporting law now saying anything over a certain amount is to be reported.
Bank transactions have a 5 figure 10,000.00 limit. Anything over 10,000.00 is to be reported. Were you trying to transact in cold cash to skirt around the reporting radar?
If you were then yes I can see the lawyers point of view as they would be liable for sanctions/fines and possible prison terms.

Just like Johnnycash here beleives in this "lawful money" theory works when the truth is he doesnt report on himself as he is in bussiness for himself...which is good he has that option to participate or not.
Johnnycash's wife had to file because she is "employed" because she participates in Social security. So why wouldnt she just redeem lawful money if its as easy as he says it is? Mean while Johnny is passing this off as insignificant.......yeah right!
And to further Johnny's dishonesty he says every now and then that his wife enjoys the huge return she gets....yep now thats being no better than a family of 5 generations working the system when they could be honest and just go to work.

Johnny doesnt report which is the test of all test for this lawful money theory.
I'd like to see someone here participate in Social Security and have all the required deductions and taxes taken from thier paycheck and file a 1040 using this "lawful money" idea demanding all their monies return and see what the IRS sends them.
I'll put my money on the irs that they will send three warning shots to file a correct 1040 before they invoke a 5,000.00 frivolous penalty per filing.
And guess where the IRS gets all the "income" data to send a return check or send a deficiency notice?.........the Social Security Administration!


You are NOT getting around Social Security's 3121(b) "employment" and its reporting requirements unless you stop participating all together.

[Goldi]

"Where you trying to pay cash to skirt around the reporting requirement?"

Pay cash? You obviously didn't read what I posted. The transaction was for the SALE of some precious metals. The vendor made a wire transfer into the account of the seller.


"I'd like to see someone here participate in Social Security and have all the required deductions and taxes taken from thier paycheck and file a 1040 using this "lawful money" idea demanding all their monies return and see what the IRS sends them."

There are at least 2 if not more pieces of proof that David M. has posted of people who did EXACTLY that. They provided the IRS copies of their paychecks, properly restricted indorsements on the backside and they got REFUNDS.

[jesse james]

"Where you trying to pay cash to skirt around the reporting requirement?"

Pay cash? You obviously didn't read what I posted. The transaction was for the SALE of some precious metals. The vendor made a wire transfer into the account of the seller.


"I'd like to see someone here participate in Social Security and have all the required deductions and taxes taken from thier paycheck and file a 1040 using this "lawful money" idea demanding all their monies return and see what the IRS sends them."

There are at least 2 if not more pieces of proof that David M. has posted of people who did EXACTLY that. They provided the IRS copies of their paychecks, properly restricted indorsements on the backside and they got REFUNDS.

And just what do you think wired transaction of 10,000.00 or more generate Goldie?
They generate a report!
The seller obviously didnt want anything reported and pay the taxes on it (cant blame him), but the buyer is required to report.

Really and where are these two examples?
I call bullshit because Social Security is like an insurance policy.
You dont get a refund for services you may not have used like un-employment, food stamps.
Nobody gets a refund of their premiums from a car insurance company because they didnt get into a car accident. The irs bases their assessment from SSA data............you participating and earning 3121(a) "wages".

[Goldi]

The VENDOR was the metals dealer who bought the metals from my friend. The vendor HAS to report transactions and no one gets around reporting a transaction of over $10k. That is automatic at the banking level. There is NO getting around reporting of a transaction that large. So, now one more time. Since the reporting was made and everyone knows it was made, what does that have to do with the lawyers for the metals vendor saying they would not allow the transaction to go thru with the line for the beneficiary instructions to have "transaction made in 100 percent lawful money" added to it on the wire transfer form?

[Goldi]

David Merrill, would you be so kind as to post the images of the proof of refunds from the IRS?

[JohnnyCash]

Goldi, have you seen this STOP JESSE 2012 (http://www.jesse2012.com) site?

[jesse james]

The VENDOR was the metals dealer who bought the metals from my friend. The vendor HAS to report transactions and no one gets around reporting a transaction of over $10k. That is automatic at the banking level. There is NO getting around reporting of a transaction that large. So, now one more time. Since the reporting was made and everyone knows it was made, what does that have to do with the lawyers for the metals vendor saying they would not allow the transaction to go thru with the line for the beneficiary instructions to have "transaction made in 100 percent lawful money" added to it on the wire transfer form?
Probably for the same reasons banks bulk at it also.
Look, I'm not saying lawful money doesnt exist for the simple reason the you can redeem fiat for lawful money or else you wouldnt see it codified.
I beleive lawful money is what ever the money was being used before the reserve act which were US Treasury Notes being backed by gold and silver which are no longer being printed.
Id say the lawyers are stopping the lawful money thingy is because the Treasurey doesnt print US notes any longer.

What would you say if you asked to be paid in dollar coins?
Dollar coins are not issued by the Reserve Banks, but from the Treasury. Dollar coins by merrills theory exist as "lawful money" simpy because they are not minted by the reserve banks. But US Treasury coins, like the reserve dollar, are not backed by gold nor silver. So what are they?
They dont appear to be fiat reserve coins and yet NOT lawful money either.
I'll garantee you that being paid in US Treasury coins still doesnt Estoppel the liability for income taxes.
The notion of being untaxable for redeeming lawful money in the form of "fiat", gold or silver or what ever doesnt make any logical sense.
It doesnt make any sense because the reporting of "income" start directly with having deductions reported via the W3 which the IRS obtains from the SSA.
The SSA gets its information from the employer or contractor from participating in SS.

Look at 3121(a) "wages"


(a) Wages
For purposes of this chapter, the term ?wages? means all remuneration for employment, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include?

I dont care if you are paid in Treasury Notes. 3121(a) "wages" says paid in any medium....................horse biscuits and marbles are mediums of exchange if thats what the two parties agree to.

[jesse james]

Goldi, have you seen this STOP JESSE 2012 (http://www.jesse2012.com) site?
Hahahaha....
Johnny I'm not who you think I'am!
And for the record for this site I'm a local 145 electrician from Iowa.
Johnny seriously that isnt going anywhere..........those who read the links from that site wont do a damn thing when they see how ignorant you are of the law. And might I say you do a fine job of being ignorant of the law for the public to see.
You'll be a laughing stock of your clueless cause Johnny!

[Goldi]

Goldi, have you seen this STOP JESSE 2012 (http://www.jesse2012.com) site?

That is hysterical. How did my name come to be an alias of his? In fact jesse2012@gmx.com - whoever you are, remove the name GOLDI from the alias list on your website.

[Goldi]

"Id say the lawyers are stopping the lawful money thingy is because the Treasurey doesnt print US notes any longer." Sorry, but you are not thinking thru your statement. 12 USC 411 has not been abrogated. It is still in force and effect today and nothing changed in 1933 [domestic gold standard abrogated], 1966 [silver standard abrogated], 1970 [International gold standard abrogated] or 1971 [withdrawal of US Notes from general circulation]... So that is not the reason why they don't want the signature restriction. It is because the naked indorsement on the instruments is what causes you to become liable on the interest on the US Bonds placed into circulation with the creation of the new money. US Notes were the INELASTIC currency of the people. The reason that you can demand lawful money is NOT to say you can get something other than FRN's but rather you can use them in a different CAPACITY, that being AS IF they were US Notes of an inelastic nature [making it impossible for you to be held liable for the interest on the bonds]. If they refuse to allow that option it then becomes abject SLAVERY. Oh yeah, they'll get all bent out of shape and pissy, but they cannot stop you from a restricted indorsement on each and every instrument you send thru the banking system.

[jesse james]

That is hysterical. How did my name come to be an alias of his? In fact jesse2012@gmx.com - whoever you are, remove the name GOLDI from the alias list on your website.
Hey...not my problem Goldi your buddy Johnnycash here thinks I'm you (doesnt surprise me) is the one who started that ridicules site.
All Johnny's going to do is piss off some lawyers who might get some shit on the street.
Johnny doesnt think past his nose.....but its funny to think of what legal action he might find himself in over.

[JohnnyCash]

Hahahaha....
Johnny I'm not who you think I'am!
And for the record for this site I'm a local 145 electrician from Iowa.
I just went through the jesse2012.com (http://jesse2012.com) visitor logs for today 3/24/12. We have visitors from Texas, Calif, Colorado, United Kingdom, and Oregon. But none from Iowa. It appears I've caught you lying yet again.

[JohnnyCash]

... Now, this was a 5 figure transaction. So you tell me...why would the lawyers nix this simple little notation on a wire transfer document to the detriment of a 5 figure transaction if "there is nothing to this" and the whole premise is bull sh@t ????????? Now I know why they did that, but the point of the matter is that the lawyers know what it means too.
I think it's a mistake to assume all lawyers know about lawful money. At least as we here at Planet Merrill do and use it practically. In fact, I think most people are unaware of it, including attorneys. Here is attorney Edwin Vieira Jr. talking about the conundrum of lawful money in Pieces of Eight:

http://jesse2012.com/PO8_819.jpg
http://jesse2012.com/PO8_820.jpg
http://jesse2012.com/PO8_822.jpg
http://jesse2012.com/PO8_824.jpg
http://jesse2012.com/PO8_826.jpg
http://jesse2012.com/PO8_828.jpg

[jesse james]

I just went through the jesse2012.com (http://jesse2012.com) visitor logs for today 3/24/12. We have visitors from Texas, Calif, Colorado, United Kingdom, and Oregon. But none from Iowa. It appears I've caught you lying yet again.
You have a habit of making a fool out of yourself dont you?
I havent been to that site today nor in the last couple of days.
Way to go.......discrediting yourself like that.
But thats your MO anyway....isnt any surprise!

[JohnnyCash]

I havent been to that site today nor in the last couple of days.
Perhaps. Anyway, I'm encouraged that you're reviving this thread Jesse, the thread where you've previously been shown to be lying. This indicates you remain defiant in the face of central banking's demise. That you will fight to the end. That you're prepared to go down with the ship. We're in for some great entertainment here. Here is the Dallas Fed Executive VP explaining Why We Must End Too Big to Fail -- Now: http://dallasfed.org/assets/documents/fed/annual/2011/ar11b.pdf

http://jesse2012.com/jatsea_t.jpg
A rare photograph of J at the helm of HMS Quatloo at battle in the Sea of Unintended Consequences. He was overheard saying:
"I've forgotten more about taxes than you will ever know!"
"Wesley! engage the censorship engine."
"The law is the law!!! BWAAH"

[Goldi]

"I think it's a mistake to assume all lawyers know about lawful money." I certainly did not assert that, but you can TAKE IT TO THE BANK, THAT THE LAWYERS WORKING AT BANKS KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT MEANS. And I had that evidenced to me in a transaction from about 2 years ago where the teller looked at the indorsement restriction and said he had to run it through the lawyers and so sorry for the delay. They approved it. So you cannot tell me the lawyers working for banks don't get this. And in the matter of all lawyers getting it? Well of course not, just the one's who have to know it...at the banking level.

[JohnnyCash]

Well the lawyer Famspear, suspected founder of Quatloos.com, says he once worked as a bank auditor, so he can't claim ignorance.

[Goldi]

"We must End Too Big to Fail" NO we don't have to do the impossible, that being to end the FED. All we have to do is RESTRICT IT'S INTRUSION AND CONTROL INTO PUBLIC MONEY circulation, and rescind the controls on the implementation of the inelastic currency being circulated and when that is properly implemented, then the derivatives market debacle will fall exclusively upon the assholes who created the whole mess and it will derail any kind of public currency implosion here in the Usa and limit it to FRN's as it was intended and also from which it was created.

[JohnnyCash]

It seems that before we talk about a solution, we should probably come to an agreement on the problem. But I would agree that our problem, America's problem, and in fact most of the globe's problem, originates in banking.

You mentioned the Fed (Federal Reserve System). This was setup by the bad guys with an appearance of government oversight. The Federal Reserve Banks are privately owned. But the whole system contains many parts like S.W.I.F.T., CHIPS, ACH, etc. that perform vital functions in commerce like wire transfers, check clearing, etc. Therefore the big question is... can we remove enough of the bad element to keep the benign yet vital parts functioning as we return to US Treasury Banks and metals-backed US notes? Can we get rid of the cancer, or should we just let the patient die and start over?

Here is Jim Sinclair talking about the financial warfare the bad guys are engaged in:
http://www.jsmineset.com/2012/03/19/ellis-martin-report-with-jim-sinclair-and-the-nuclear-economic-trigger/

They've kicked Iran out of the SWIFT system, and now that India is trading gold for oil with them, they are threatening India with the same.

[David Merrill]

It seems that before we talk about a solution, we should probably come to an agreement on the problem. But I would agree that our problem, America's problem, and in fact most of the globe's problem, originates in banking.

You mentioned the Fed (Federal Reserve System). This was setup by the bad guys with an appearance of government oversight. The Federal Reserve Banks are privately owned. But the whole system contains many parts like S.W.I.F.T., CHIPS, ACH, etc. that perform vital functions in commerce like wire transfers, check clearing, etc. Therefore the big question is... can we remove enough of the bad element to keep the benign yet vital parts functioning as we return to US Treasury Banks and metals-backed US notes? Can we get rid of the cancer, or should we just let the patient die and start over?

Here is Jim Sinclair talking about the financial warfare the bad guys are engaged in:
http://www.jsmineset.com/2012/03/19/ellis-martin-report-with-jim-sinclair-and-the-nuclear-economic-trigger/

They've kicked Iran out of the SWIFT system, and now that India is trading gold for oil with them, they are threatening the same.

I have been studying A Course in Miracles on Saturday mornings over at the Science of Mind church. While I agree that the central banking issue is a major contributor, Imminentizing the Christian Eschaton is a real factor. Which is to say, to rush the Second Advent of Jesus CHRIST of Nazareth.

I read A Journey Without Distance, the book about the creation of A Course in Miracles. That was very revealing having been written before MK-ULTRA was declassified (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Thetford). Even now, it is difficult to call it declassified if there is more black Magic Marker on a page than not. On pages 65-66 of Journey Helen notices Bill is putting two carbon sheets in his typewriter? She wonders why so Bill introduces her to "John", and John joins them "from then on" but no more detail is given about John! Fitting in that Bill was CIA, John would be his handler. Being that Helen always had a vivid imagination and was a highly educated psychologist with no apparent childhood trauma, and how after settling into routine with Bill she suddenly started being commanded by The Voice and seeing in streaming color videos Medical Psychology Department in the late '60's] it is a pretty good presumption that John and Bill were dosing her with LSD.

The CIA would be the esoteric secret society and you might better understand if you read The Craft of Intelligence by Allen Welsh DULLES, who formed the CIA being Director for eleven years while it was first developing.

This imminentizing, (my word for making imminent or rushing) pushing God's plan by studying scripture and prophecy and then pushing your own agenda through your understanding of it is one of the highest moral crimes imaginable to the Hebrew/Israelite/Jewish mindset. A brilliant study on this is The Nazarene Gospel Restored by Robert GRAVES and Joshua PODRO. It is unique I believe and it very likely is the sole source of my thinking on this.

Jesus was newly coronated the King of Israel. Under the Roman Occupation and their Marshals the Herodean Guard though, that was a treason against Rome and Caesar, so it was a fairly esoteric secret society that only lasted a few hours. Just the same, the new King suggested that Judas would sop from his bowl. This little gesture of favor on Jesus' part, this little nudge of encouragement may have detained the kingdom of heaven for over 2000 years.

What Judas was to do was to take the apostle's (jural society's) purse, go buy a sword, return to the banquet and slay Jesus according to the Worthless Shepherd's Prophecy found in the Book of Zechariah. Jesus' life, being the Messiah of God already prophesied had already fulfilled every other prophecy exactly and since Judas and Jesus had studied all out together we might presume that Judas knew what he had to do, or simply would have done so according to Plan. However the show of favor, by commanding Judas to accept favor may have been what sent Judas to try and save his Master's life instead by turning him in to the Guard. - Hoping that Jesus would confess he was not King and be lightly punished by publicly handing the Crown back to Caesar.

I imagine that killing your best friend in front of witnesses so that you would most certainly be caught and crucified for it would be a pretty difficult task indeed. - Just so that some dusty old writings could be described as accurate prophecy! But these things were all coming together anyway. In a moment of doubt though, it may have been Jesus who was unsure if Judas would complete the entire prophecy-set of the ancient prophets of Israel so he decided to nudge Judas and altered events thus imminentizing the Christian eschaton.

[JohnnyCash]

Those books sound interesting. Our "jesse james" here may have a role in that imminentizing. He has elsewhere stated:


jesse james commented March 05, 2012

One of the two beasts in Revelation receives a mortal blow.
After this political monitary beast receives its mortal blow in comes the second beast (satan), to which satan play acts as Christ, resurrects the beast that received the mortal blow.
This has all been foretold Johnny.......no biggy!
Freedom isnt coming....not until the 7th trumpet has sounded.

Its "who" that appears play acting as Christ thats much worse. The world is going to whore after this spurious messiah and not even know its satan.
And the sad devistating part is the 7th trumpet is the real Christ appearing and those who are whoring after satan play acting as christ arent in any favor with the Father.
Its a sad day for those who went whoring.

[Taxd2death]

Okay,

Real NEWBIE here. I come too from the CTC club of "I'm not involved in any Privileged Activity, so give me back my money". Filed that way.. didn't work.. Paying penalties. I am thankful to CTC for at least opening my eyes to something being terribly wrong with my earnings belonging to some bureaucratic black hole and watching my freedom and liberty disappear into the abyss, if you will.

But, I have some real questions and I don't want to take up too much time:

This has been the most interesting thread I have read yet. But, I don't care who is trolling and who is real. Or what your real name is. I have learned something from each of you. I get Mr. Merrill's point about changing the CAPACITY and purpose of the money we exchange. I am still not totally sure of it all because I am still learning.

What is interesting though, is what Jesse James has been saying and whether you give it credence or not really doesn't matter to me. My question is, if we have all fallen under some benefit of Social Security, and because that creates "wages", and there apparently is an option to not wish to participate in it, then does the SSA provide the tools with which to opt out of it? Can an FbO Statement be filed with the SSA? And do they have to accept it? It just seems to me that it would then fall on the SSA to notify and "employer" that withholding of that particular tax would no longer be necessary. And what about all the money you have already paid in. What happens to that?

Just searching. And thank you all for whatever input you have. The bickering really is distracting. And thank you for letting me be a part of it. Blessings to you all!

[jesse james]

Those books sound interesting. Our "jesse james" here may have a role in that imminentizing. He has elsewhere stated:
Umm johnny.........thats exactly what God inspired men to write down in the Bible would happen and is going to happen.
You really need to check into visiting a shrink....your wife is concerned!

[jesse james]

Okay,

Real NEWBIE here. I come too from the CTC club of "I'm not involved in any Privileged Activity, so give me back my money". Filed that way.. didn't work.. Paying penalties. I am thankful to CTC for at least opening my eyes to something being terribly wrong with my earnings belonging to some bureaucratic black hole and watching my freedom and liberty disappear into the abyss, if you will.

But, I have some real questions and I don't want to take up too much time:

This has been the most interesting thread I have read yet. But, I don't care who is trolling and who is real. Or what your real name is. I have learned something from each of you. I get Mr. Merrill's point about changing the CAPACITY and purpose of the money we exchange. I am still not totally sure of it all because I am still learning.

What is interesting though, is what Jesse James has been saying and whether you give it credence or not really doesn't matter to me. My question is, if we have all fallen under some benefit of Social Security, and because that creates "wages", and there apparently is an option to not wish to participate in it, then does the SSA provide the tools with which to opt out of it? Can an FbO Statement be filed with the SSA? And do they have to accept it? It just seems to me that it would then fall on the SSA to notify and "employer" that withholding of that particular tax would no longer be necessary. And what about all the money you have already paid in. What happens to that?

Just searching. And thank you all for whatever input you have. The bickering really is distracting. And thank you for letting me be a part of it. Blessings to you all!
Taxedtodeath you can participate over at http://www.iwarrior.defendindependence.us/ if you like.
I'm done with a particular person here who continues to try and derail the truth about "wages".

[Taxd2death]

Taxedtodeath you can participate over at http://www.iwarrior.defendindependence.us/ if you like.
I'm done with a particular person here who continues to try and derail the truth about "wages".

Thanks.. I will check it out..

If I had the cure to cancer, I am not sure I could hold out for the highest bidder...Just sayin.

[JohnnyCash]

HA! 'smatter Jay? Think you can run away from your own creation? Even Wes admits that Quatloos shares some responsibility for who I am. You lead me directly to lawful money & permanent freedom, freedom from SS, Income taxes, citations, etc. by your constant ridicule of David Merrill.

And now your handlers are kicking countries out of the SWIFT banking system? Talk about megalomania.
http://www.frbservices.org/eventseducation/education/fedwire_chips_swift_format_info.html

Jim Sinclair talks about why cutting Iran off SWIFT represents a huge escalation in the ‘currency wars’ (that have replaced ground and air invasions as the primary way countries go to war). In preparation, more countries are engaged in currency swaps and are now bartering with gold. As a result, Gold is getting nearer to the center of the global banking system (contradicting the recent Bernanke rhetoric). America’s cutting off Iran from SWIFT (deleting their country code, due to take effect next month), will send a powerful signal globally that the banking system is not only unstable but prone to unilateral reconfigurations by the US to serve it’s foreign policy.
http://maxkeiser.com/2012/03/27/a-swift-kick-to-the-pistachios-cbs-and-jim-sinclair-cover-what-happens-when-swift-cuts-off-iran/

Ahh, it's a beautiful day on the Sea of Unintended Consequences :D
STOP JESSE JAMES 2012 (http://jesse2012.com)

[JohnnyCash]

To help get this thread back on track, I've revised the Form W-4 to be a little more honest:

Form W-4
Purpose. Complete Form W-4 so the international banking cartel may legally withhold from your pay. In America, the cartel operates primarily as the International Monetary Fund Internal Revenue Service (hereinafter the "Fund") and we prefer to call this legalized scheme of theft the Federal Income tax. Pretty slick, eh? Consider completing a new Form W-4 each year of your wage-slave life.

Why. Because we said so, that's why. We are your bankster overlords and we've captured your government. We've got a large network of tax attorneys, CPAs & accountants all trained to say you need to sign this to work in the US. The conditioning has worked so well that it's nearly automatic now. We just assume every employee has signed a W-4. Also, WE REALLY NEED THE MONEY just about now. And not just for big bank bailouts, in case you haven't noticed, the Fund is now buying European Government Bonds: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/its-official-fed-now-buying-european-government-bonds

Where to File. This form isn't filed with anyone, silly rabbid. It'll just sit in a filing cabinet at your company's HR/payroll dept. We got enough paper. Their year-end W2 tells us what we really need.

And no, you don't even get a thank you. In our eyes you're just a useless eater. Besides, if we thanked you, you might realize this is all optional!

[blah, blah, more filler here]

Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this certificate and, to the best of my knowledge & belief, it is true, correct, and complete.

Employee's signature
(This form is not valid unless you sign it.) __________________ Date _______

[jesse james]

To help get this thread back on track, I've revised the Form W-4 to be a little more honest:

Form W-4
Purpose. Complete Form W-4 so the international banking cartel may legally withhold from your pay. In America, the cartel operates primarily as the International Monetary Fund Internal Revenue Service (hereinafter the "Fund") and we prefer to call this legalized scheme of theft the Federal Income tax. Pretty slick, eh? Consider completing a new Form W-4 each year of your wage-slave life.

Why. Because we said so, that's why. We are your bankster overlords and we've captured your government. We've got a large network of tax attorneys, CPAs & accountants all trained to say you need to sign this to work in the US. The conditioning has worked so well that it's nearly automatic now. We just assume every employee has signed a W-4. Also, WE REALLY NEED THE MONEY just about now. And not just for big bank bailouts, in case you haven't noticed, the Fund is now buying European Government Bonds: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/its-official-fed-now-buying-european-government-bonds

Where to File. This form isn't filed with anyone, silly rabbid. It'll just sit in a filing cabinet at your company's HR/payroll dept. We got enough paper. Their year-end W2 tells us what we really need.

And no, you don't even get a thank you. In our eyes you're just a useless eater. Besides, if we thanked you, you might realize this is all optional!

[blah, blah, more filler here]

Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this certificate and, to the best of my knowledge & belief, it is true, correct, and complete.

Employee's signature
(This form is not valid unless you sign it.) __________________ Date _______
Back on track huh?
The track is Social Security and how plays into earning taxable "wages" vs lawful money as the source of liability.
You wouldnt know your ass from a hole in the ground.......HA!

[stoneFree]

Jesse, did you see that tomorrow Congress will hold a hearing on the MF Global theft (savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?534-MF-Global-Bank-Run)? I believe this marks the first time JP Morgan Chase has been subpoenaed to testify on one of their "operations." JP Morgan (Rothschild's bank) was the instigator of the MF Global implosion just as they were for Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Refco, Amaranth, &c.

JP Morgan-MF Global-Euro Gate Escalates (http://www.myspace.com/tom_heneghan_intel/blog/545493462)

Stress cracks are showing all over the globe as your Banking Cabal is getting barraged from all sides now.

[jesse james]

Jesse, did you see that tomorrow Congress will hold a hearing on the MF Global theft (savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?534-MF-Global-Bank-Run)? I believe this marks the first time JP Morgan Chase has been subpoenaed to testify on one of their "operations." JP Morgan (Rothschild's bank) was the instigator of the MF Global implosion just as they were for Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Refco, Amaranth, &c.

JP Morgan-MF Global-Euro Gate Escalates (http://www.myspace.com/tom_heneghan_intel/blog/545493462)

Stress cracks are showing all over the globe as your Banking Cabal is getting barraged from all sides now.
Hmm.......again you show everyone here you dont know your ass from a hole in the ground...........Libra, Stonefree and Johhnycash......you are all the same delusional person.
Tell me what does JP Morgan Chase testifying to Congress have to do with the liability of the federal income taxes that starts with Social Security's 3121(a) "wages"?
I'll garrentee you when the banking system does go down it will replaced with another monetary system and the American income tax will still be intact just the way it is now....through participating in Social Security. It will stay intact untill Congress removes chapter 21 from Subtitle C Employment Taxes.
The US dollar will still be in existence, but not in the capacity as the worlds reserve currency. That will be the only difference Johnny too-late.
Come on Johnny ...grow up and smell the coffee!

[JohnnyCash]

ah, so Mister 3121(a) "wages" agrees that our banking system is going down. That is progress for a quatloser, but, do your handlers know of your stance? Have you already liquidated your retirement and savings accounts like I have after discovering the folly of using government debt notes as money?


BANK RUN!

[jesse james]

ah, so Mister 3121(a) "wages" agrees that our banking system is going down. That is progress for a quatloser, but, do your handlers know of your stance? Have you already liquidated your retirement and savings accounts like I have after discovering the folly of using government debt notes as money?


BANK RUN!
Answer the question Johnny or are you going to continue your foolish childish ways?

This question isnt like the unaswerable question I asked about procuring the statutory evidence (which doesnt exist) that says having reserve fiat in your pocket causes the federal income tax liability.

Come on answer Johnny...show everyone a coherent answer that makes perfect sense so you can redeem yourself from being delusional......

[JohnnyCash]

Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 18:3

I have already been redeemed:
http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/2252/ssa2.jpg

[jesse james]

Answer the question Johnny....or is it a matter that you cannot answer that simple question?
Seems you cannot answer any questions!
And for a third time in a row you demonstrate you dont know your ass from a hole in the ground.......you work for yourself See See on the bottom of the SSa statement where it says "Your employers paid"?
Johnny so why would the SSA "wage" statement proof anything?
It doesnt prove anything to help you Johnny....just proves your an idiot to think people are stupid enough to beleive you after seeing its from working for someone.
That SSA statement is a tally of "wages" under "employment" as in working for someone. All you are doing since you dont report on yourself to the Social Security Administration is proving my point that the IRS will leave you alone if you dont participate in Social Security.
Thanks for the varification Johnnycash, Libra, Stonefree and Johnthetaxist.

Really Johnny all you are doing is solidifying doubt in Merrills theory...but thanks anyway!

[JohnnyCash]

Way back in time I was W4/W2 worker, but now I work for myself. And all I did to get out of SS was stop using the SSN. You're not very proud of that SSA termination letter you wrote are you?

All you are doing since you dont report on yourself to the Social Security Administration is proving my point that the IRS will leave you alone if you dont participate in Social Security. You know full well that not reporting is not sufficient to keep the IRS away. There's no shortage of folks who stopped reporting and were then charged & convicted:
http://www.taxhelpattorney.com/articles/tax-evasion-cases.html

Unfortunately they didn't learn of, and redeem, lawful money. Like I do. I have won. One might think you are very bothered by my success, but can't say I feel sorry for a psychopathic liar. Your agenda here is obvious. And it's not working. HA!

Oh, and tell your cold hearted wrong doing woman friend that I'm working on the book she wanted.

[David Merrill]

It might be wiser to consider the SSA is the source for the Taxpayer ID #. Then it does not matter any more about benefits, it is a matter of identifying you, or not.



Okay,

Real NEWBIE here. I come too from the CTC club of "I'm not involved in any Privileged Activity, so give me back my money". Filed that way.. didn't work.. Paying penalties. I am thankful to CTC for at least opening my eyes to something being terribly wrong with my earnings belonging to some bureaucratic black hole and watching my freedom and liberty disappear into the abyss, if you will.

But, I have some real questions and I don't want to take up too much time:

This has been the most interesting thread I have read yet. But, I don't care who is trolling and who is real. Or what your real name is. I have learned something from each of you. I get Mr. Merrill's point about changing the CAPACITY and purpose of the money we exchange. I am still not totally sure of it all because I am still learning.

What is interesting though, is what Jesse James has been saying and whether you give it credence or not really doesn't matter to me. My question is, if we have all fallen under some benefit of Social Security, and because that creates "wages", and there apparently is an option to not wish to participate in it, then does the SSA provide the tools with which to opt out of it? Can an FbO Statement be filed with the SSA? And do they have to accept it? It just seems to me that it would then fall on the SSA to notify and "employer" that withholding of that particular tax would no longer be necessary. And what about all the money you have already paid in. What happens to that?

Just searching. And thank you all for whatever input you have. The bickering really is distracting. And thank you for letting me be a part of it. Blessings to you all!

[Sabo]

It might be wiser to consider the SSA is the source for the Taxpayer ID #. Then it does not matter any more about benefits, it is a matter of identifying you, or not.

Sure, but I think Taxd2death was more about what one might be able to do if you've already provided a SSN to a place you work - what remedies are then available to remove that participation.

Would 26 CFR 31.3402(P)-1(d) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/31/3402(p)-1) "...desires that the [voluntary withholding] agreement terminate on a specific date" be applicable here?

[jesse james]

Way back in time I was W4/W2 worker, but now I work for myself. And all I did to get out of SS was stop using the SSN. You're not very proud of that SSA termination letter you wrote are you?
You know full well that not reporting is not sufficient to keep the IRS away. There's no shortage of folks who stopped reporting and were then charged & convicted:
http://www.taxhelpattorney.com/articles/tax-evasion-cases.html

Unfortunately they didn't learn of, and redeem, lawful money. Like I do. I have won. One might think you are very bothered by my success, but can't say I feel sorry for a psychopathic liar. Your agenda here is obvious. And it's not working. HA!

Oh, and tell your cold hearted wrong doing woman friend that I'm working on the book she wanted.
You arent going to answer that question are you Johnny....thats just like you Johnny!
Just like you arent going to explain why you are showing a SSA showing "wages" when you were "employed" where you didnt have control of you reporting like you do now being self employed.
The ole bait and switch trick but NOT everyone is easily tricked Johnny.

[Taxd2death]

Sure, but I think Taxd2death was more about what one might be able to do if you've already provided a SSN to a place you work - what remedies are then available to remove that participation.

Would 26 CFR 31.3402(P)-1(d) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/31/3402(p)-1) "...desires that the [voluntary withholding] agreement terminate on a specific date" be applicable here?

Thank Sabo. That's what I was getting at. I think. I know that going forward, using this method can't really have any negative effects as all I am doing is making a demand and in a way changing the way I do business. But, for all of us who have given this beast it's power and presence, there is still the unfinished business of what we leave behind. Is it just best to leave it and go forward?

I don't really want to involve my boss anyway. I would like to find a way to put the ball in the SSA court to make them say "oops, sorry about that" (maybe a little unrealistic). That way it doesn't sound like hearsay to my boss and accountant who, of course, think I'm nuts.. I know that somewhere along the way, making my demand will change some things. I am just not sure what those changes will be yet. Thanks for your patience everyone.

[JohnnyCash]

You arent going to answer that question are you Johnny....thats just like you Johnny!
Just like you arent going to explain why you are showing a SSA showing "wages" when you were "employed" where you didnt have control of you reporting like you do now being self employed.
The ole bait and switch trick but NOT everyone is easily tricked Johnny.
Oh, so now you need a "foolish, delusional child" to answer your questions? I thought you were all-knowing? jesse james (http://jesse2012.com), if you can't comprehend the relationship between banking, currency & taxation by now, I'm afraid there's little hope for you. And have you stopped & listened to yourself lately? You sound confused, non-sensical, desperate and grasping.

Jesse, does your funding come from the Koch Brothers?
http://the2012scenario.com/2012/03/koch-brothers-exposed-money-influence-in-america/

[jesse james]

Oh, so now you need a "foolish, delusional child" to answer your questions? I thought you were all-knowing? jesse james (http://jesse2012.com), if you can't comprehend the relationship between banking, currency & taxation by now, I'm afraid there's little hope for you. And have you stopped & listened to yourself lately? You sound confused, non-sensical, desperate and grasping.

Jesse, does your funding come from the Koch Brothers?
http://the2012scenario.com/2012/03/koch-brothers-exposed-money-influence-in-america/
Funny thing is Johnny banking and currency doesnt come up when looking at the taxing regulations and statutes..........hmmmmm wonder why that is Johnny?
When a foolish child poses questions without any law to back it then logical sense the foolish child can asnwer a few questions.

[JohnnyCash]

Good Morning patriots & psychopaths! I saw an interesting Forbes article... Could Bitcoin Become the Currency of System D? (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2012/03/19/could-bitcoin-become-the-currency-of-system-d/)

Cryptography shall always have a place in securing our digital future and most especially in securing our digital value. Advanced public-key encryption for the masses cannot be eliminated nor denied ? the genie is out of the bottle and mankind is the better for it. The unintended consequence of regulating or restricting decentralized cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin is that their use as a currency will have been ?recognized? officially and that usage will be driven largely underground.
...
Despite increasing consumption taxes like VAT (value-added tax), the informal economy can still provide relief through various markets and bazaars. Americans too will need black markets to survive. System D represents the future.

Yes, we will. Unless of course the banking cartel and its minions (that's you jesse (http://jesse2012.com)!) stand down. But I don't see that happening anytime soon.

To the psychopath: I realize my 5 year victory over IMF IRS bankster enslavement is particularly troubling for you (that's why you come here), but I do utilize the law. That law is talked about all over this website. Perhaps you'd sleep better presuming this "foolish child" is an idiot who just got lucky. Or his victory is all an illusion; a bad dream that you'll soon wake up from. And I really did not deposit this much LAWFUL MONEY into Peoples United Bank:
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8392/lmreceipt.jpg

[jesse james]

Good Morning patriots & psychopaths! I saw an interesting Forbes article... Could Bitcoin Become the Currency of System D? (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2012/03/19/could-bitcoin-become-the-currency-of-system-d/)

Yes, we will. Unless of course the banking cartel and its minions (that's you jesse (http://jesse2012.com)!) stand down. But I don't see that happening anytime soon.

To the psychopath: I realize my 5 year victory over IMF IRS bankster enslavement is particularly troubling for you (that's why you come here), but I do utilize the law. That law is talked about all over this website. Perhaps you'd sleep better presuming this "foolish child" is an idiot who just got lucky. Or his victory is all an illusion; a bad dream that you'll soon wake up from. And I really did not deposit this much LAWFUL MONEY into Peoples United Bank:
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8392/lmreceipt.jpg
Still refusing to answer any questions huh Johnny?
Or is it because the answer doesnt exist in the law........because the law doesnt operate like you say it does.
Otherwise you could pull up the statute and asnwer the questions you refuse to answer.

Thats alright Johnny. Your silence is in answering is solidifying all the doubt surrounding the "theory" about merrills premise on lawful money.
Thanks for further varification!

[JohnnyCash]

Actually, my experience shows the law operates exactly as Merrill and others have pointed out. I am a NON-taxpayer. I have no SSN. Should I feel sad for you that your attempts to sow doubt are failing, miserably?

I also read the P2P Foundation is paying its salaries in Bitcoin (http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/why-the-p2p-foundation-is-paying-its-salaries-in-bitcoin/2012/03/28)*
... You can buy many different goods and services with Bitcoin, exchange it with other currencies, etc… It works on a global scale. Hence, it is symbolic of the shift of our world system to a ‘post-Westphalian’ phase, a phase that goes not only beyond the dominance of the nation-states, but also beyond the private global powers that have hijacked global governance, such as the financial system of the 1% . Indeed, this new currency can be created, under conditions set by the protocol, by any participating computer. It is a true p2p monetary system. A socially sovereign currency that can scale globally will be, and is, a vital part of the emerging distributed infrastructure of value creation that the P2P Foundation calls for. This does not mean that Bitcoin is necessarily the final and perfect answer to our needs, but it is an important step in demonstrating that it CAN be done. We envisage the development of future ‘forks’ and currencies that have other qualities embedded in them, and call for monetary bio-diversity.

It is to demonstrate our commitment to such developments, that we will now pay our collaborators in a mix of currencies, and part of it will be in Bitcoin. I applaud this. It represents another way to bypass central banking, to escape the Social Security scam that "jesse james" is deceiving us about.

* NOTE: that link is giving me trouble. You may have to go here first & then goto the BLOG. http://www.p2pfoundation.net

[jesse james]

Actually, my experience shows the law operates exactly as Merrill and others have pointed out. I am a NON-taxpayer. I have no SSN. Should I feel sad for you that your attempts to sow doubt are failing, miserably?

I also read the P2P Foundation is paying its salaries in Bitcoin (http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/why-the-p2p-foundation-is-paying-its-salaries-in-bitcoin/2012/03/28)* I applaud this. It represents another way to bypass central banking, to escape the Social Security scam that "jesse james" is deceiving us about.

* NOTE: that link is giving me trouble. You may have to go here first & then goto the BLOG. http://www.p2pfoundation.net
The SSN has nothing at all to do with Merrills theory on money Johnny.......so why are you even referncing the ssn?
You and I both know where reporting originates Johnny. And reporting begins with Social Security.....you know and I know because banks dont issue a W4 "employment" form to open an account. Thats silly Johnny and thats just what you are saying.

Secondly Johnny......which is it?
Banking or Social Security?
I mean in the same paragraph you are saying Social Security needs to be escaped from and then you are saying what I say is deceiving about SS.........is a scam?
I can produce the statutes to back my word about SS...and you cant find, procure, produce, make known one(1) statute backing the fiat money premise. And you are calling me a scam artist.....Ha!
Not only are you delusional, but demented also!

Furthermore the bitcoin will have no effect on taxation. As soon as the government recognizes bitcoin they will make it so Social Security taxes will be deducted and witheld from the paychecks.
You are not going to get around Social Security's "3121(b) "employment" Johnny!
Not unless you completely stop participating in the government Social Security program to stop the reporting of income.
Only a tard thinks otherwise.

[JohnnyCash]

Ah, but what kind of person argues with a delusional, but demented tard? Did you happen to notice I make plenty of $ but no longer participate in Social Security's "3121(b) "employment"? Banks use a Form W-9 or "Substitute W9" that requires a TAXpayer Identification Number (SSN) where the signer certifies: "I am a U.S. citizen or other U.S. person."

The beauty of Merrill's Old-Fashioned Lawful Money Remedy is its elegant simplicity. To reduce or eliminate taxation there's no need to hide income, put it in trust, or move it out of the country like some folks prescribe: http://www.taxhavens.us/articoli/the-dilemma-in-paying-taxes.html I was just talking to a doctor about taxes - tax shelters, etc. I told him there's no need for all that, just learn about LAWFUL MONEY and use it, don't end up a DDC. I could tell he was having some trouble wrapping his head around it; I should show him my TY08 tax refund and SS Earnings Report, eh?

And you & I both know the govt knows ALL ABOUT BITCOIN. But the banksters are in a bit of a quandary about it. Bitcoins are holding their value (currently about $4.76 each) and they're very concerned about its rising popularity. It's network P2P so there's no headquarters to raid, it's bombproof. And as that article points out, the unintended consequence of outlawing bitcoin will just serve to officially recognize it as currency and drive it underground where it will flourish. Oh boo hoo jesse.

[jesse james]

Ah, but what kind of person argues with a delusional, but demented tard? Did you happen to notice I make plenty of $ but no longer participate in Social Security's "3121(b) "employment"? Banks use a Form W-9 or "Substitute W9" that requires a TAXpayer Identification Number (SSN) where the signer certifies: "I am a U.S. citizen or other U.S. person."

The beauty of Merrill's Old-Fashioned Lawful Money Remedy is its elegant simplicity. To reduce or eliminate taxation there's no need to hide income, put it in trust, or move it out of the country like some folks prescribe: http://www.taxhavens.us/articoli/the-dilemma-in-paying-taxes.html I was just talking to a doctor about taxes - tax shelters, etc. I told him there's no need for all that, just learn about LAWFUL MONEY and use it, don't end up a DDC. I could tell he was having some trouble wrapping his head around it; I should show him my TY08 tax refund and SS Earnings Report, eh?

And you & I both know the govt knows ALL ABOUT BITCOIN. But the banksters are in a bit of a quandary about it. Bitcoins are holding their value (currently about $4.76 each) and they're very concerned about its rising popularity. It's network P2P so there's no headquarters to raid, it's bombproof. And as that article points out, the unintended consequence of outlawing bitcoin will just serve to officially recognize it as currency and drive it underground where it will flourish. Oh boo hoo jesse.
Thanks for confirming and varifying 3121(b) "employment" Johnny!

[JohnnyCash]

Thanks for confirming and varifying [sic] 3121(b) "employment" Johnny!
So that's it? I don't get any award for successfully opting out of SS "employment," no induction into the JJ Hall of Fame?

Wait a minute - that contradicts what you earlier said here (http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forums/16625-freedom-watch-show-ideas/suggestions/180526-cracking-the-code-by-pete-hendrickson?page=8):

jesse james commented - March 19, 2012 -

But you do participate.........you get 1099's.
They still are counted by the SSA even though its below the IRS's 600.00 radar to file.
Thats called self-"employment".

[jesse james]

So that's it? I don't get any award for successfully opting out of SS "employment," no induction into the JJ Hall of Fame?

Wait a minute - that contradicts what you earlier said here (http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forums/16625-freedom-watch-show-ideas/suggestions/180526-cracking-the-code-by-pete-hendrickson?page=8):

Hahahaha.....nice try Johnny.

You only report what you want them to know about Johnny.....only reporting upto the $600.00 threshold.
Other than that Johnny you havent proved a point except your snakish untrustworthy ways.
I'm a bit surprised Merrill hasnt told you to stop proving his premise is full of doubt!
You're definately solidifying doubt in the whole money thingy....where not you nor Merrill has yet provided any statutory evidence fiat imposes any tax....not to the likes of Social Security which you just varified once again.

[JohnnyCash]

heh. jesse, you're not making sense, you're not logical. I said "I make plenty of $ but no longer participate in Social Security's "3121(b) "employment." Then you thanked me for not participating, and then I point out where you thought I DID participate by virtue of receiving 1099s. So which is it oh great wise & all-knowing Famspear? Am I participating in "employment" or not?

You know, an inherent problem with being a liar, sociopathic or otherwise, is when you forget your previous lies and reality starts to co-mingle with the lies & the lies compound on one another and pretty soon you start looking like . . . . jesse james (http://jesse2012.com)!

[David Merrill]

Hahahaha.....nice try Johnny.

You only report what you want them to know about Johnny.....only reporting upto the $600.00 threshold.
Other than that Johnny you havent proved a point except your snakish untrustworthy ways.
I'm a bit surprised Merrill hasnt told you to stop proving his premise is full of doubt!
You're definately solidifying doubt in the whole money thingy....where not you nor Merrill has yet provided any statutory evidence fiat imposes any tax....not to the likes of Social Security which you just varified once again.

I'm a bit surprised Merrill hasnt told you to stop proving his premise is full of doubt!


That is loaded, pregnant and misleading all in itself. Mostly for the attitude problem between you two, I have not been bothering to read all this bickering going on. It sounds as though you think me stupid enough to tell somebody to stop proving my premise is full of doubt?

I do appreciate what appears at a glance that you two are keeping to one thread with all this stuff between you! Thank you for that. You are keeping the both of you easy to ignore. Please do not boil over the hostilities to more than just this. There are people here to learn. This just in today from somebody who studies here on StSC:


David just today, a friend that I have been helping w/demanding lawful money got their refund check from the IRS. They did the process for the entire year of 2011. They got every dime they paid in federal w/holding back, to the penny. They mailed the return and supporting schedules first class on February 14, and got the check in the mail today. Demanding lawful money works. This is the second year that the person used the process. This is the second year that they have received a federal tax refund. They also got back all Arizona income taxes paid in 2011. This person has paid zero income tax for the entire year of 2011. Of course they will demand lawful money for the refund check and has already demanded lawful money for the state income tax refund check. Always get paid in the form of a check and you can avoid income taxes, lawfully. I just wish I would have know about this way back in 1979 when I started working for a living. Better late than never!!! Just thought I would share the great news. This is to your credit David, you figured this out and were kind enough to share it w/the rest of us. Thank you again David, have a super day.


Nickname,
Arizona


I can appreciate that two members don't get along though. Both of you came on line about the same time and started squabbling before I got to know either one of you and so I started tuning you both out. I recall some while ago trying to decide which one of you I liked but must have been distracted because I really don't know to this day who is who; Jesse James and Johnny Cash are both equal weight to me and since I don't enjoy reading even my own squabbling I am involved with, you guys have become boring.

Fortunately there are many much more interesting threads that people are enjoying. If you guys start getting out of this little portion of sandbox with your nasty and childish feud, I will bounce you both. If you have some interesting stuff and enjoy articulating it then I suggest you explore past this thread. But outside this thread, I strongly suggest that you two would avoid each other altogether.



Sincerely,

David Merrill.

[JohnnyCash]

Fair enough. Thank you David. Your insights are very helpful to me with regard to things I've heard, but didn't really believe possible, about internet rooms/forums. And thanks for sharing the Arizona success story!

Jesse, can you tell me what this is (http://jesse2012.com/whatsthis.jpg) ?

[Sabo]

Now that the public infighting has stopped, can someone please answer Taxd2death's and my question?


Thank Sabo. That's what I was getting at. I think. I know that going forward, using this method can't really have any negative effects as all I am doing is making a demand and in a way changing the way I do business. But, for all of us who have given this beast it's power and presence, there is still the unfinished business of what we leave behind. Is it just best to leave it and go forward?

I don't really want to involve my boss anyway. I would like to find a way to put the ball in the SSA court to make them say "oops, sorry about that" (maybe a little unrealistic). That way it doesn't sound like hearsay to my boss and accountant who, of course, think I'm nuts.. I know that somewhere along the way, making my demand will change some things. I am just not sure what those changes will be yet. Thanks for your patience everyone.


Would 26 CFR 31.3402(P)-1(d) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/31/3402(p)-1) "...desires that the [voluntary withholding] agreement terminate on a specific date" be applicable here?

[jesse james]

Now that the public infighting has stopped, can someone please answer Taxd2death's and my question?




Would 26 CFR 31.3402(P)-1(d) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/31/3402(p)-1) "...desires that the [voluntary withholding] agreement terminate on a specific date" be applicable here?
No it doesnt work. What 3401(p) is about is terminating an agreement on earnings that dont constitute as 3401(a) "wages" because they dont qualify for Social Security credits.
There are exclusions to participating in Social Security which dont constitute 3401(a) "wages" that an agreement , if desired, can be withheld from.
This is about terminating a voluntary withholding agreement on earnings that are not mandatory to withhold from.
Follow the link to read for yourself.

[JohnnyCash]

He doesnt want to be DDC so now the doc is considering putting his lawful money demand on his checks and depositing to a Cayman Islands bank :rolleyes:

Let us stipulate the following hypothetical:
For Tax Year 2011 I labored & traded in the private sector in exchange for $100,000 in checks.
Each check was then stamped "Redeemed Lawful Money Pursuant to 12 USC 411 (http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/1867/slavefree.jpg)" and signed.
I cashed half those checks (recvd US notes in the form of FRNs) and of the remaining, $25,000 was deposited into Bank A (regular interest bearing account) and $25,000 was deposited into Bank B (non-interest bearing account with a modified "Lawful Money demand" signature agreement).
I received one 1099-INT for the year from Bank A showing $50 in interest income. I received no other 1099s, W2s, nor any other IRS forms.

Can anyone answer:
1) By operation of what law, if any, did I engage in "employment" during 2011?
2) What was my statutory "gross income" for 2011?

Much obliged if you could answer without ridicule or resort to demeaning adjectives.

[Sabo]

No it doesnt work. What 3401(p) is about is terminating an agreement on earnings that dont constitute as 3401(a) "wages" because they dont qualify for Social Security credits.
There are exclusions to participating in Social Security which dont constitute 3401(a) "wages" that an agreement , if desired, can be withheld from.
This is about terminating a voluntary withholding agreement on earnings that are not mandatory to withhold from.
Follow the link to read for yourself.

Okay, I can accept that (but kind of sick of the "read for yourself" line in every single post; if we all effing understood it, we wouldn't be asking).

My question then becomes: Taxd2death (and pretty much everyone) has unknowingly - by constructive or accidental fraud via status quo - signed that he is earning 3401(a) "wages" (or at least, I'm guessing this is what the W4 is about).

We should be able to agree that private sector workers, for nearly all cases, do not earn 3401(a) "wages". What can be done to correct that assumption/misappropriation without having to deal with the IRS' automatic rejection of 0-income returns, as was the LH understanding?

[JohnnyCash]

Whether or not we're earning "wages" - the experience of many here and at LH (I'm guessing you mean LostHorizons (http://losthorizons.com)) shows we don't owe income withholding tax on it. Your return is an affidavit of how much income you made under the Revenue Acts. Our experience does not show automatic rejection of 0-income returns, but refunds, just like the IRS computers are programmed to issue. See here even I got one:

http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/5615/refund.jpg

[jesse james]

Whether or not we're earning "wages" - the experience of many here and at LH (I'm guessing you mean LostHorizons (http://losthorizons.com)) shows we don't owe income withholding tax on it. Your return is an affidavit of how much income you made under the Revenue Acts. Our experience does not show automatic rejection of 0-income returns, but refunds, just like the IRS computers are programmed to issue. See here even I got one:

http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/5615/refund.jpg
Wow thats misleading!
You said you last filed and received a refund in 08 for tax year 07. Thats a refund check issued in year 09 so what is going on here Johnny?
Also, nobody is getting refunds from filing a CtC return...................they are all getting 5,000.00 penalty's issued to them for filing a CtC return.
And everyone who posted a refund check on the LH site are getting hit with the 5,000.00 penalties on top of having to pay the refund back and the interest accumulated to pay what they were refunded.
And the author of CtC is sitting in federal prison because of it.

[Sabo]

Wow thats misleading!
You said you last filed and received a refund in 08 for tax year 07. Thats a refund check issued in year 09 so what is going on here Johnny?
Also, nobody is getting refunds from filing a CtC return...................they are all getting 5,000.00 penalty's issued to them for filing a CtC return.
And everyone who posted a refund check on the LH site are getting hit with the 5,000.00 penalties on top of having to pay the refund back and the interest accumulated to pay what they were refunded.
And the author of CtC is sitting in federal prison because of it.

Unfortunately I have to agree with Jesse here. My TY 2005 (first year of CtC) return was initially refunded, but now they're illegally levying on that (as in: violating 6331(a) 'Authority of Secretary', among other procedural violations), as well as attempting to change my other years.

PH being jailed cannot be a testimony of CtC's legitimacy on its face, since there have been noted issues on misdirection and falsities on the part of the IRS throughout his trial (I'd source, but LH has been having some database issues that I'm not sure will be corrected anytime soon, sadly).

As far as that check scan, I don't think 'Madashell' is a real city, so I'm not sure he was offering it as his own.

[JohnnyCash]

Wow thats misleading!
You said you last filed and received a refund in 08 for tax year 07. Thats a refund check issued in year 09 so what is going on here Johnny?
Also, nobody is getting refunds from filing a CtC return...................they are all getting 5,000.00 penalty's issued to them for filing a CtC return.
And everyone who posted a refund check on the LH site are getting hit with the 5,000.00 penalties on top of having to pay the refund back and the interest accumulated to pay what they were refunded.
And the author of CtC is sitting in federal prison because of it.
Happy Friday "jesse." First of all, I see you still cannot identify the whatsthis (http://jesse2012.com/whatsthis.jpg) picture I earlier linked to. And no, I never said I last filed & received a refund in 08 for tax year 07. That is the refund I received after filing a near-0 return for TY08 (sanitized for protection). It appears you are attempting to mislead. And I never got a $5000 penalty. Nice attempt at fearmongering though. Do you characters even realize how much you're helping our side? Thank You!

PS. you forgot to add in the misspelled words typical of your "jesse" persona, Jay.

[Taxd2death]

Agreed.. I am one of them.. 5k penalty for the whole deal..Even though I don't really disagree with the premise of my money belonging to me. I do realize that it is because of me that they are taking it, keeping it, and holding it for some sort of ransom until I completely cave. They have the upper hand. It is going to be a daunting task for most of us to recover from the CTC way of doing things..Sorry about that. I am eternally grateful to Mr. Hendrickson for at least opening my eyes to there being something wrong. But, it didn't work. And so now I and many others like me are led here. The only positive to that is at least there is a glimmer of hope that we can start from here and right the ship before we completely sink it.. Thanks everyone. And though some may not agree. I have learned a great deal from Mr. Merrill and Jesse James. I hate that there is such conflict with everyone. We are all trying to get to the same end. I hope..

[JohnnyCash]

What conflict? Sabo & Taxd2death, Your time is gonna come. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4aj_vABphAo#t=125s)

Interesting interview 3/28 with veteran Drake here: http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=205512

or here: http://freedomreigns.us/ALERTS.html

[JohnnyCash]

Just like to point out another clue that "jesse james" here is not who he claims. He has earlier stated to be an electrician from Iowa. I linked this image (http://jesse2012.com/whatsthis.jpg) and asked him about it 3 times (twice here, once in another venue). He was silent; never answered. I submit that's probably because "jesse" is not an electrician at all. That's a Lil' Ripper Stripper (http://www.idealindustries.com/prodDetail.do?prodId=45-025) electricians use to strip romex, cut the sheath, strip wires & bend them. Very handy little $5 tool. Even if not all electricians use one, they'd certainly have encountered one before & know what it is. But Jesse didn't. Why? Probably because he's no electrician at all, as he indicated.

Begs the question, why the attempt to mislead and who is he really? Well if David Merrill and the suitors have uncovered some important truths, sharing them publicly, truths if widely understood would threaten the cabal's trillion dollar fraud ...

I submit that this website is fairly crawling with minions of the darkside under various pseudonyms. I find that validating & encouraging.

[Gregory Harold]

It is going to be a daunting task for most of us to recover from the CTC way of doing things..Sorry about that. I am eternally grateful to Mr. Hendrickson for at least opening my eyes to there being something wrong. But, it didn't work.

Are you saying the entire CtC movement is 'dead'? What about those who are sole proprietors/self-employed who simply rebut 1099's and don't really have any problem with the IRS? It seems the CtC 'approach' gets 'thwarted' in the attempt to recover monies withheld by an "employer".

[JohnnyCash]

I am getting ready to apply remedy to my situation. Hopefully, going forward, it will have some immediate relief. But, past years will be tough. And if there is a tomorrow for me and my wife, then I hope it proves brighter than the yesterdays, as far as this stuff goes.
I know that from now on, I will study harder and learn better. I am thankful to all of you, especially Mr. Merrill. At least the folks here haven't come under too much fire and there seems to be a more educated "aura", if you will, in this forum. Looking forward to more learning, more doing, and taking back my identity. And by the way, I don't really believe that people like Jesse and Johnny mean any harm to each other or anyone here. I think they are both quite smart about this whole thing. I have learned from both. Hopefully, they meet some common ground soon. For the sake of Suitors.As a peaceful inhabitant, I certainly mean no harm to anyone. Jesse (http://jesse2012.com) is probably unhappy about not gaining any traction. His only following here is other quatlosers and his other sock-puppet usernames.

I doubt the purpose of joining this club is to beat us over the head with it.

[Taxd2death]

As a peaceful inhabitant, I certainly mean no harm to anyone. Jesse (http://jesse2012.com) is probably unhappy about not gaining any traction. His only following here is other quatlosers and his other sock-puppet usernames.

I doubt the purpose of joining this club is to beat us over the head with it.

Fair enough. I think you both have awfully valid points.

[Taxd2death]

Are you saying the entire CtC movement is 'dead'? What about those who are sole proprietors/self-employed who simply rebut 1099's and don't really have any problem with the IRS? It seems the CtC 'approach' gets 'thwarted' in the attempt to recover monies withheld by an "employer".

No. I am not saying that it is dead. Who am I to say that? And I am not suggesting that we not rebut those forms. I just see that the one who taught us how to do it isn't winning the argument. I don't know how that is going to turn out. I know that I am not winning the argument and I am not nearly as knowledgeable as he is. I do agree with you that the "employer" issue is the crux of the problem. But, I receive both W2 and 1099 from same source. Rebutting one without the other doesn't fly. I get the resistance with both. No matter what.

[Chex]

There is a whole lot of misinformation re: the SSTF. It lives! In a hearing yesterday the Chief Actuary, Mr Goss, explained that every check is issued from the trust fund.

What Happened to the $2.6 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund? (http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2011/07/13/what-happened-to-the-2-6-trillion-social-security-trust-fund/) You have to read the comments.

What happens is the FICA revenues come in and are placed into the SSTF account. SSA authorizes the monthly payments and Treasury writes check every Wednesday. Aug 3 is the 1st Wed.

What treasury does is redeem the SSTF special treasuries (convert them from intra-governmental to publcly owned). There is no change in the debt/debt ceiling as it was first calculated when received and placed into the trust fund.

During periods when there are monthly surpluses, that surplus is transferred to the Genera Fund. That?s is the way nearly every TF works, and for SS it was written into the original bill. Since 1935-7 it has operated this way with some minor differences.

Now, when there are SS deficits, Treasury just redeems the correct amount of SSTF bonds to cover the difference. That?s the way it was designed to work! http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2011/07/13/what-happened-to-the-2-6-trillion-social-security-trust-fund/2/


The Galveston plan, which I wrote about a few months ago here, is also a very good option. http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2011/05/12/how-three-texas-counties-created-personal-social-security-accounts-and-prospered/2/

[outlierquest]

Hello Everyone,

I'm new to this forum and am enjoying reading the posts. Concerning "lawful money" as a remedy, does anyone know how to fit this into "certain obligations of the United States" concerning purchases if you do not have much "lawful money"? The following code seems to be a remedy, but not sure. Any thoughts?

12 U.S.C. ? 347c : US Code - Section 347C: Advances to individuals, partnerships, and corporations; security; interest rate

Subject to such limitations, restrictions, and regulations as the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System may prescribe, any
Federal reserve bank may make advances to any individual,
partnership, or corporation on the promissory notes of such
individual, partnership, or corporation secured by direct
obligations of the United States or by any obligation which is a
direct obligation of, or fully guaranteed as to principal and
interest by any agency of the United States. Such advances shall be
made for periods not exceeding 90 days and shall bear interest at
rates fixed from time to time by the Federal reserve bank, subject
to the review and determination of the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System.

Thanks,
Micha

[David Merrill]

Hello Everyone,

I'm new to this forum and am enjoying reading the posts. Concerning "lawful money" as a remedy, does anyone know how to fit this into "certain obligations of the United States" concerning purchases if you do not have much "lawful money"? The following code seems to be a remedy, but not sure. Any thoughts?

12 U.S.C. ? 347c : US Code - Section 347C: Advances to individuals, partnerships, and corporations; security; interest rate

Subject to such limitations, restrictions, and regulations as the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System may prescribe, any
Federal reserve bank may make advances to any individual,
partnership, or corporation on the promissory notes of such
individual, partnership, or corporation secured by direct
obligations of the United States or by any obligation which is a
direct obligation of, or fully guaranteed as to principal and
interest by any agency of the United States. Such advances shall be
made for periods not exceeding 90 days and shall bear interest at
rates fixed from time to time by the Federal reserve bank, subject
to the review and determination of the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System.

Thanks,
Micha

I am not familiar with it. However it looks like a little-used provision due to FDIC.

[Goldi]

The irs has sent a memo for all exempt W4's to withhold at 30%. You may find yourself in the irs crosshairs when they review the data (W3) authorized by the W4 and see that you are indeed accumulating income but haven't had deductions withheld.
I bring this up because the W4 is giving the employer permission to treat your earnings as "wages" and as "wages" income tax liabilities incur at 26USC 3101 and 26USC 3402. Exempt or not this "exempt" status is not by any means telling the irs you cant be touched.
The smart individual would do up an affidavit - Pursuant to 5 USC 552 I do not give {your employer} permission to disclose any of my private financial information to any 3rd parties. Get it notarized, copied and send it to the payroll department of your company.

[Chex]

Take that paper to court and have the judge enforce it.

[David Merrill]

Bossing around payroll and personnel might easily backfire time for the next layoffs.