PDA

View Full Version : endorsing and SS.......a big question!



Pages : [1] 2

jesse james
11-10-11, 01:53 AM
Hello everyone.
I'm new here, but have had lengthy conversations with a member here going by the addy "johnycash".
First off, I want to say I'm an old schiffite and banished from the CtC forum. I analys everything to make for sure it holds water.
Anyway, after discontinueing the conversation with JC (who kept reffering me as larry....aka famspear and a host of others from quatloos) I decided to join this forum as JC kept pointing this website out in his posts on another forum. And by the way, I'm not associated with quatloos in anyway....just not buying a lot of theories!
I'll admit I dont understand this 411 endorsing fiat into lawful money thingy you have going on here. I have a very good and hard hitting question about the liabilities eminating from social security that really need to be addressed.
What I dont understand is how endorsing a check in such a way, after deductions from 3101 and 3402 already taken out, can eliminate federal income liability? This is the premise that "johnycash" has brought forward anyway.

I couldnt get a straight answer from johnthetaxist....aka "johnnycash" here at this forum.
Any help is appreciated.

David Merrill
11-10-11, 02:31 AM
Hello everyone.
I'm new here, but have had lengthy conversations with a member here going by the addy "johnycash".
First off, I want to say I'm an old schiffite and banished from the CtC forum. I analys everything to make for sure it holds water.
Anyway, after discontinueing the conversation with JC (who kept reffering me as larry....aka famspear and a host of others from quatloos) I decided to join this forum as JC kept pointing this website out in his posts on another forum. And by the way, I'm not associated with quatloos in anyway....just not buying a lot of theories!
I'll admit I dont understand this 411 endorsing fiat into lawful money thingy you have going on here. I have a very good and hard hitting question about the liabilities eminating from social security that really need to be addressed.
What I dont understand is how endorsing a check in such a way, after deductions from 3101 and 3402 already taken out, can eliminate federal income liability? This is the premise that "johnycash" has brought forward anyway.

I couldnt get a straight answer from johnthetaxist....aka "johnnycash" here at this forum.
Any help is appreciated.

Social Security itself is a legitimate Income Tax.

Read this Text File (http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/convincing.html) and if you want, watch my video (http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/convincing.html) about it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B-Buo5XXoY

I first began to realize how serious this Income Tax is treated when a suitor went on SS. He had a $1K check and tried to non-endorse it like all his other checks. The bank refused to do it. He did not have the patience to work it through so he followed their suggestion and took it to the Plexiglas-protected "CASH YOUR PAYCHECKS HERE - VIDEOS - PAWN SHOP". They were apparently expecting him and when he tendered the SS check the lady pulled out a Sharpie and completely blacked out his Demand!

It was very discouraging for him.

The technique by the way is that once the demand is made, give it a single strikethrough and get a copy. Now you have your cash and your demand on record too. You do not have to have received lawful money to have demanded it. The lawful money is identical to FRNs anyway! It is making your demand that is important. If the bank made you strike it through to put groceries on the table then how can that affect your demand?



Regards,

David Merrill.

motla68
11-10-11, 03:18 AM
Welcome to the group Jesse. I can attest that somewhat of a newbie myself here the scientific proof is definitely challenged here so your in the right group.

Not just the lawful money aspect of things lets address something very interesting about Social Security, back some years ago when I was one to really work the statutes over there is on section that was one of my favorites you could have some fun with, that was 26 USC 6334, let me show you some linking subsections here that you might find interesting:

(c) No other property exempt
Notwithstanding any other law of the United States (including section 207 of the Social Security Act), no property or rights to property shall be exempt from levy other than the property specifically made exempt by subsection (a).

Interesting how they hide that little provision, Let's go check out section 207 of the Social Security Act:

(a) " none of the moneys paid or payable or rights existing under this title shall be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process, or to the operation of any bankruptcy or insolvency law."

So there you go, you got the lawful money backing up the front end when signing for checks, then also if they try to go after benefits already paid out you have this to back you up. Quite a few years ago helped an old guy out with this on his SS benefits and the IRS has left him alone since then.

jesse james
11-10-11, 12:43 PM
I guess I didnt make myself clear.
One of the forum members references that by endorsing a check into lawful money stops the federal income tax impositions.
I said I disagree with this premise because endorsing a check to receive lawful money instead of fiat is after the 3101 and 3402 impositions.
I couldnt wrap my head around how a check that already has the neccessary deductions deducted could stop the Social Security W3 reporting.
I showed this person regulations and law stating all IRS data comes from the W3 the SSA receives from the employer.
I tried explaining to this individual the liability and amounts reported is gonna still remain in the system and that to stop all liability the W3 has to be stopped at the source.....the employer.
Well the arguement continued until I just told him that I will no longer deal with him and his accusations that I was Larry from quatloos.
The guy just didnt want to listen to logic or reason.
Now I'm not saying anything about lawful money as you can redeem lawful money at will, but redeeming lawful money doesnt stop the requirements of reporting when its after the fact.

JohnnyCash
11-10-11, 04:30 PM
Welcome "Jesse" ;)
Yes, we have had lengthy conversations over at FreedomWatch (http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forums/16625-freedom-watch-show-ideas/suggestions/180526-cracking-the-code-by-pete-hendrickson), dating back several years, where I accused him of being a fake patriot, and of being the alternate persona of "Larry Williams" there. And yes; I strongly suspect "Jesse" is a Quatloos.com member, likely Famspear. He loves to argue, misdirect, and spread fear & disinfo. Generally, to keep sheople in the taxpaying pen.

And no, I did not put forth the premise that redeeming a paycheck with SS deductions into lawful money could stop W3 reporting or SS taxation. I told him that I no longer pay income or SS taxes. I receive all my pay without any deductions and therefore cannot test that premise myself.

FINALLY! The Quatloser arrives.

motla68
11-10-11, 04:38 PM
I guess I didnt make myself clear.
One of the forum members references that by endorsing a check into lawful money stops the federal income tax impositions.
I said I disagree with this premise because endorsing a check to receive lawful money instead of fiat is after the 3101 and 3402 impositions.
I couldnt wrap my head around how a check that already has the neccessary deductions deducted could stop the Social Security W3 reporting.
I showed this person regulations and law stating all IRS data comes from the W3 the SSA receives from the employer.
I tried explaining to this individual the liability and amounts reported is gonna still remain in the system and that to stop all liability the W3 has to be stopped at the source.....the employer.
Well the arguement continued until I just told him that I will no longer deal with him and his accusations that I was Larry from quatloos.
The guy just didnt want to listen to logic or reason.
Now I'm not saying anything about lawful money as you can redeem lawful money at will, but redeeming lawful money doesn't stop the requirements of reporting when its after the fact.

Please see attachments as an option;

723724

jesse james
11-10-11, 06:36 PM
I put you on ignore johny cash.

jesse james
11-10-11, 06:49 PM
Please see attachments as an option;

723724
Motla68,
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.

JohnnyCash
11-10-11, 07:22 PM
HA! Remember over at FreedomWatch (http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forums/16625-freedom-watch-show-ideas/suggestions/180526-cracking-the-code-by-pete-hendrickson) when you said you'd submitted papers to SSA to terminate your participation? But then could not provide any documentation to backup your claims? Well I HAVE successfully stopped paying Social Security in 2008, Jesse, take a look:
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?461&p=5059&posted=1#post5059

Here at STSC we don't just talk, we execute with proof. We get reproducible results. As an example, just today I blew past a statey in an unmarked car. After he finally caught up in his Toyota hoopty (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hoopty) I handed the DL over saying "I'm showing this for competency not for identification." Let me tell you, prior to my discovering Planet Merrill, this would've been an automatic several hundred dollar ticket, but today, nothing but a few questions, "why were you traveling so fast?" "what's your driving record look like?" No ticket, no written warning, no nuthin honey. (NOTE: Please drive safely observing all traffic rules. Speed kills.)

Continue playing?

motla68
11-10-11, 07:42 PM
Motla68,
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.

31 USC 3124
(a) Stocks and obligations of the United States Government are exempt from taxation by a State or political subdivision of a State.
The exemption applies to each form of taxation that would require the obligation, the interest on the obligation, or both, to be considered in computing a tax, except - (1) a nondiscriminatory franchise tax or another nonproperty tax instead of a franchise tax, imposed on a corporation; and (2) an estate or inheritance tax. (b) The tax status of interest on obligations and dividends, earnings, or other income from evidences of ownership issued by the Government or an agency and the tax treatment of gain and loss from the disposition of those obligations and evidences of ownership is decided under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). An obligation that the Federal Housing Administration had agreed, under a contract made before March 1, 1941, to issue at a future date, has the tax exemption privileges provided by the authorizing law at the time of the contract.

And I have more where that came from.

jesse james
11-10-11, 09:55 PM
Motla68,
I put everything under the microscope here as everyone should do. You have to play court here being an impartial judge (being honest with yourself).
Can you, Motla68, provide how stocks and obligations of 31USC 3124 has anything at all to with 3121 "wages"?................apples and oranges here.
Stocks and obligations aren't the same as "wages" (working for a living) and this is saying that "stocks and obligations" of the united States government are exempt by a state.
And yes if you have more then bring it to the table and lets put it under the microscope!

Also,
I would like to add to my previous post about the employer and the exempt W4.
Most forget that even though you file the W4 exempt the employer is still matching a precentage of what you make and handing it over to the SSA. What this means is its a back door for the irs to start an audit because the amounts being matched by the employer is computed and will be compared to the amounts he is reporting you earn even though nothing is being deducted and/or withheld.
Like I told johny cash you havent really accomplished anything as the IRS sees you still earning reportable income.
Johny cash attributes his success because he is not telling everyone that he has control over the reporting which for the 99.999999999% rest of us is not the case. That in my book is a bit deceiving and untrust worthy.
I'm here to put to the test the theory of lawful money so those who dont have control of the W3 are more informed of possible trouble in the future.
They deserve to see another side of things before the IRS hands out 5,000.00 penalties.

JohnnyCash
11-10-11, 10:29 PM
No Jesse, my success isn't only due to lack of W3/1096 reporting, you're forgetting the other mechanism they have to check for taxable income. They can easily check the bank account attached to the SSN/TIN (can't have a bank account without one) to see if I deposited (excisable) Fed Reserve money, or lawful money ...

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8392/lmreceipt.jpg

Keep playing?

motla68
11-11-11, 12:08 AM
Motla68,
I put everything under the microscope here as everyone should do. You have to play court here being an impartial judge (being honest with yourself).
Can you, Motla68, provide how stocks and obligations of 31USC 3124 has anything at all to with 3121 "wages"?................apples and oranges here.
Stocks and obligations aren't the same as "wages" (working for a living) and this is saying that "stocks and obligations" of the united States government are exempt by a state.
And yes if you have more then bring it to the table and lets put it under the microscope!

Also,
I would like to add to my previous post about the employer and the exempt W4.
Most forget that even though you file the W4 exempt the employer is still matching a precentage of what you make and handing it over to the SSA. What this means is its a back door for the irs to start an audit because the amounts being matched by the employer is computed and will be compared to the amounts he is reporting you earn even though nothing is being deducted and/or withheld.
Like I told johny cash you havent really accomplished anything as the IRS sees you still earning reportable income.
Johny cash attributes his success because he is not telling everyone that he has control over the reporting which for the 99.999999999% rest of us is not the case. That in my book is a bit deceiving and untrust worthy.
I'm here to put to the test the theory of lawful money so those who dont have control of the W3 are more informed of possible trouble in the future.
They deserve to see another side of things before the IRS hands out 5,000.00 penalties.

Sometimes one can be so focused on the details under a microscope that they forget things learned elsewhere.
If you know anything about commercial law you would know that the issuer of a public registered security always
has the obligations attached to that security. Wages, interest, stocks or whatever it depends on intent of how
received. So in the matter of making demand for lawful money i.e. public registered securities it is not apples
and oranges. I have had a pretty lengthy conversation with a corporate attorney over this when once I was
hired for what they called a non-exempt position. The corporate attorney ended up agreeing with me and
withholding was stopped, I held that position for 6 years without withholdings, the state DOR come in once
and garnished wages, I got that stopped too within 3 weeks and being that i have knowledge of corporate
fiscal accounting the employer had not sent out what was taken and with a little effort i got them to return
that which was taken.
I have not seen any 5K penalties since coming into the full knowledge of lawful money.

28 USC 3002 - Federal courts jurisdiction and venue
(14) “State” means any of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, or any territory or possession of the United States.

Member states of the United Nations:
- United States of America

Anyways, Using statutes for me is fading off into the past very fast and have started embarking a journey going beyond the privileged exemptions personally. If you have not identified the solution by now there is nothing more that I can do or say to try an convince you. One does not really know for sure until they have experienced it themselves, no microscope can teach that.

jesse james
11-11-11, 12:46 AM
So you support my finding that the W3 is the reporting component.
Your example of the corporate attorney agreeing to not withhold is the reason you are successful..................not because of lawful money.
You stopped the W3 reporting!
Now the issue with johnthetaxist is he thinks by redeeming a payroll check in lawful money stops the employer from reporting the W3 which on the check the deductions have already been deducted and reported somehow magically erases the entry over at the SSA system without a finger pushing a key.
This is not the case is it because you had the state DOR come after you. The only reason that agency came after you was that agency had some reporting of you going on.
Thank you for agreeing with me.

Yes I know about commercial law.........as in commerce.
Every state of the union uses the same civil law, not common law constitution, definition of "state" as you posted. That is how I finally reached about 10 Ctcers who seen the light why CtC is a complete failure and Pete went to jail.
Me and public defender friend of mine predicted Pete going to jail 3 years prior.......and it happened.
All "US citizens" by state definition are within the commercial jurisdiction..................that one pulled about 3 ctcers away from Hendrickson.

JohnnyCash
11-11-11, 03:56 AM
Oh goodie, we get to play with the "Jesse" awhile yet. Lemme tell ya folks, our STS Club has finally arrived. I believe we now have our very own real live minion of the banking cartel! But of course, judge for yourself...

Now the issue with johnthetaxist is he thinks by redeeming a payroll check in lawful money stops the employer from reporting the W3 which on the check the deductions have already been deducted and reported somehow magically erases the entry over at the SSA system without a finger pushing a key.Objection. That is not my position, not what I think & not what I said at all. This is an example of MISCONSTRUE. Twist the opponents words into something easily attacked. Typical Famspear.


Thank you for agreeing with me. Incorrect. We do not agree with you nor your practice at the art of deception. Typical Famspear.


.. Like I told johny cash you havent really accomplished anything as the IRS sees you still earning reportable income.If the IRS sees me earning income, reported or not, why haven't they come after me 3 plus years later?


Johny cash attributes his success because he is not telling everyone that he has control over the reporting which for the 99.999999999% rest of us is not the case. That in my book is a bit deceiving and untrust worthy.A psychological warrior would say his opponent is untrustworthy, but your claims are baseless. I don't have control over the client's reporting, they're free to report, but if they do I stop working for them.



.. You may find yourself in the irs crosshairs ..
.. before the IRS hands out 5,000.00 penalties.
.. why CtC is a complete failure and Pete went to jail. This is FEARMONGERING. The attempt to scare off anyone considering remedy. Typical Quatloser talk.

I remain convinced that Quite simply, "jesse" has no interest in remedy, or freedom. He's an agent of the dark side.

Brian
11-11-11, 04:52 AM
A W-3 is generated by the place you work for when you give them a SSN. They presume you wish to be a part of the SSA ponzi. They then treat your pay as "wages" for the purpose of withholding SSA credits toward your supposed "trust fund". They then CC the IRS with the W-3 info now called a W-2. The W-2 is not proof positive of "income". Its merely saying you MAY have received "income" and if it IS "income" and you don't report it the service will ass rape you.

Now when you try the HENDRICKSON method the service says bullshit. Cause they look at the info returns and then your bank account records and say "you earned income" and if the nature of your income is in the form of corporate currency by blanket endorsing your paychecks...checkmate your screwed.

This is not hard. If you endorse corporate currency/credit generated by exclusive privilege granted by CONgress to the FRS you fall into the private law of Title12 and 26 and must obey. Benefiting from that "privilege" (what benefit eludes me) is most certainly a taxable activity.

The Demand for redeemed lawful money however changes the nature of that income beyond their jurisdiction.

jesse james
11-11-11, 02:14 PM
A W-3 is generated by the place you work for when you give them a SSN. They presume you wish to be a part of the SSA ponzi. They then treat your pay as "wages" for the purpose of withholding SSA credits toward your supposed "trust fund". They then CC the IRS with the W-3 info now called a W-2. The W-2 is not proof positive of "income". Its merely saying you MAY have received "income" and if it IS "income" and you don't report it the service will ass rape you.

Now when you try the HENDRICKSON method the service says bullshit. Cause they look at the info returns and then your bank account records and say "you earned income" and if the nature of your income is in the form of corporate currency by blanket endorsing your paychecks...checkmate your screwed.
I agree with most of what you are sayng Brian except for two issues-

1. The SSA inputs the info from the W3 transmittal into the system. The only purpose for the W2 is for the filer to prepare his/her return. The W2 is a receipt of "income" just as 26USC 6051 says it is which must be mailed to the employee by a certain date. 3121(a) "wages" and 3401(a) "wages" are both one in the same and are the measuring medium of "income".
"Service" and 3121(a) "wages" are synomimous when it comes to defining "income". The SS handbook will tell you that.

2. What Hendrickson is doing by replacing the W2 with a form 4852 is challenging the W3 transmittal info. The problem with this 4852 approach is it doesnt magically change the W3 info the SSA already has inputed which the IRS uses to determine a return or a deficiency. The form 4852, for one, is not meant for the CtC (zero return) purpose. The IRS is nothing more than a simple built in collection agency of the Treasury. The IRS, nor any agency, has any legal standing to determine if you want to participate in SS or not (Bill of Rights are effected by participating). They are just a collection agency trying to do its job, thats all. They dont even have a legal standing to tell you what you are doing wrong. I'm not siding with the IRS here, just being impartial to fully understand facts. And the facts are the IRS relies on the W3 transmittal from the SSA.
All I'm saying about Pete is he decided to participate in SS thereby generating forms indicating he, in fact, had bonifide statutory reportable "income"...........the W3 "smoking gun".
The proof is in Petes own trial. The prosecution in Petes case presented, the employer, who tesitified, and the W4, which convicted Hendrickson.
What would you think the outcome of Pete's trial would have been if the employer testified in the other direction? Do you think the prosecution would have any legal teeth without Petes W4?
What everybody doesn't realize about Pete's trial is the significants of what the presecution used to convict Pete.........the W4! But Pete distracted himself away from the real issue of the W4 and entered the trial focusing on the frivolous 800lb gorilla "government employee" issue. Stupid but it is what it is!


This is not hard. If you endorse corporate currency/credit generated by exclusive privilege granted by CONgress to the FRS you fall into the private law of Title12 and 26 and must obey. Benefiting from that "privilege" (what benefit eludes me) is most certainly a taxable activity.

The Demand for redeemed lawful money however changes the nature of that income beyond their jurisdiction. I disagree......fiat currency is used for both "private and public" debt, says so on every piece of paper.
The question here is they were endorsing checks into fiat way before 1939 and a majority of Americans had no obligation to file 1040's. History says the facts are that in 1940 tens of millions of Americans filed tax returns for the first time in their lives, the IRS website will tell you this.
When was the Reserve Act enacted and put into place Brian?
The Reserve Act was enacted on Dec. 13, 1913. Thats 26 years before the Social Security Act of 1939. Theres no coincidence to fiat currency like there is to chapter 21 of Subtitle C- Employment taxes of Title 26. One year after the 1939 internal revenue revision tens of millions of Americans were filing 1040's for the first time in 1940. This is because the 1939 code was the first revision to include chapter 21 (Social Security) in Subtitle C- Employment Taxes where you find governent employees. Does this make you a government employee? No it doesnt, but thats not what Pete wants you to believe.
It takes one year of earning "wages" to tally up for filing purposes. So do you beleive theres no coincidence to chapter 21 in the 1939 revenue code to the tens of millions of first tiem filers of 1040's in 1940? It doesnt take a retard to have a little reasoning and do the math here!
As for the jurisdiction. You fall within Congress's jurisdiction when you sign any government document stating you wish to be treated as a "US citizen".
"US citizens" are distinquished from the People by "privileges" from Rights.
If you, Brian, want to know which Buill of Rights are considered "fundamental" between the People and "US citizens" let me know I can post a link to the official Senate document stating which ones.
"US citizens" dont have much protections eminating from the Bill of Rights......what they do have are "Civil Rights" or government granted "privileges" that eminate from the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and you dont have to be colored to apply for them.

stoneFree
11-11-11, 03:10 PM
Disagree all you want Jesse, you won't get anywhere here. You appear quite content paying taxes you don't owe. Or perhaps better stated, taxes you could easily avoid by avoiding THEIR currency, redeeming lawful money.

I'll always have respect for HENDRICKSON as his Cracking the Code (http://losthorizons.com/CtCforFree.pdf) first showed me the tax code didn't actually say what all the so-called "experts" said it did, it was all smoke & mirrors. And then, by God's grace, I became aware of David Merrill and lawful money. Jesse, you can't use Pete as an example in this "endorsing" thread - he used private credit of the Federal Reserve via blanket endorsement. He didn't redeem lawful money. Were you born stupid or just acting?

I see the outspoken Irishman is Back (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/irishman-back-and-shares-his-views-wall-street-total-fucking-chaos) with his take on Wall St.

jesse james
11-11-11, 03:23 PM
Disagree all you want Jesse, you won't get anywhere here. You appear quite content paying taxes you don't owe. Or perhaps better stated, taxes you could easily avoid by avoiding THEIR currency, redeeming lawful money.

I'll always have respect for HENDRICKSON as his Cracking the Code (http://losthorizons.com/CtCforFree.pdf) first showed me the tax code didn't actually say what all the so-called "experts" said it did, it was all smoke & mirrors. And then, by God's grace, I became of David Merrill and lawful money.

I see the outspoken Irishman is Back (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/irishman-back-and-shares-his-views-wall-street-total-fucking-chaos) with his take on Wall St.
Who told you I pay taxes?
And if you like we can dispute cracking the code. I see Merrill doesnt agree with Pete either, but some of you do. I find that really odd!
I can show you why CtC is wrong........its quite simple why.
It doesnt take a degree to see where hendrickson went wrong. You just have to understand that Social Security 3121(a) "wages" and 3121(b) "employment" are both in the 3401(a) "wage" definition. Its really that simple and if you participate in SS you earn 3401(a) "wages".
Whats sad here is that people are offended for some reason when I prove hendrickson is wrong. I would have thought people would like to know so they dont end up like hendrickson and schiff.....in the clinker!
But hey.......I'm just painfully honest thats all.
I dont kid myself....as you can see.

stoneFree
11-11-11, 03:43 PM
Jesse, Your speech indicates you do pay taxes; show us some proof you don't. And your attempts to sow division, fear & derail the thread is duly noted. HENDRICKSON says the Fed Income Tax is an excise on THEIR stuff (I suspect most here would agree). Unfortunately for him, he didn't discover the 2 capacities of our currency - private credit v. public money. Federal Reserve credit v. lawful money. He endorsed private credit and was administrated against via operation of statute. It's deception writ large. It's a scam and a fraud. And it's all coming down. The end of the Keynesian experiment is upon us, the end of unbacked fiat money is at hand! You've lost Jesse. You've lost the argument and you're losing the war.

motla68
11-11-11, 04:26 PM
The debate over wages and taxes has been argued for way too long, so as such is lawful money versus fiat currency. It all falls under other property to which is the after thought of man, not the creator. It's time to stop beating ones head against the wall expecting different results, how about changing direction once in for all, this could go on for days.
We cannot all save the world, maybe Jesse just does not want to open up to other possibilities and is just happy with whatever he is doing currently ? Cannot change someones mind unless they want to change. (free will and right to self determination).

Here is another issue worth debating, are you a label or are you part of the land (natural resource). Check out this fascinating blog post a friend of mine wrote:
http://onlashuk.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/label-me-this-the-jurisdictional-entry-point/
Another group discussion on this has been started here as well:
http://groups.google.com/group/born-without-money/browse_thread/thread/aebb5c5340ae62d/497065930ec2d9bf?lnk=gst&q=Label+me+this#497065930ec2d9bf

- Part of the Peaceful Inhabitant vs. Enemy Combatant series of thought, you know from the JAG manual for armies in the field, how do you want to be marked and identified from the military occupation? Yes, they do use a procedure called identity markers in their computer systems to which are linked together and talk to eachother and that also includes I*R*S*.

jesse james
11-11-11, 04:44 PM
Jesse, Your speech indicates you do pay taxes; show us some proof you don't. And your attempts to sow division, fear & derail the thread is duly noted. HENDRICKSON says the Fed Income Tax is an excise on THEIR stuff (I suspect most here would agree). Unfortunately for him, he didn't discover the 2 capacities of our currency - private credit v. public money. Federal Reserve credit v. lawful money. He endorsed private credit and was administrated against via operation of statute. It's deception writ large. It's a scam and a fraud. And it's all coming down. The end of the Keynesian experiment is upon us, the end of unbacked fiat money is at hand! You've lost Jesse. You've lost the argument and you're losing the war.
Oh really john!
The excise is participating and earning 3121(a) "wages".
Want proof?
Here it is John!

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))—

If the employer is taxed an excise tax for having in his employ individuals earning "3121(a) "wages" in respect to 3121(b) "employment" then reason and logic says"employment" is the excise.
It only stands to reason that without "employment" an "excise" doesnt exist.
And wouldnt you know it what were Americans doing before 1939????
They were working the same jobs John.
My grandfather worked the same job prior 1939 until the outbreak of the war in 1941. He wasn't taxed until he applied for a ssn in 1941 where now the pay was considered a taxable "wage".
This isnt rocket science!

jesse james
11-11-11, 04:47 PM
The debate over wages and taxes has been argued for way too long, so as such is lawful money versus fiat currency. It all falls under other property to which is the after thought of man, not the creator. It's time to stop beating ones head against the wall expecting different results, how about changing direction once in for all, this could go on for days.
We cannot all save the world, maybe Jesse just does not want to open up to other possibilities and is just happy with whatever he is doing currently ? Cannot change someones mind unless they want to change. (free will and right to self determination).

Here is another issue worth debating, are you a label or are you part of the land (natural resource). Check out this fascinating blog post a friend of mine wrote:
http://onlashuk.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/label-me-this-the-jurisdictional-entry-point/
Another group discussion on this has been started here as well:
http://groups.google.com/group/born-without-money/browse_thread/thread/aebb5c5340ae62d/497065930ec2d9bf?lnk=gst&q=Label+me+this#497065930ec2d9bf

- Part of the Peaceful Inhabitant vs. Enemy Combatant series of thought, you know from the JAG manual for armies in the field, how do you want to be marked and identified from the military occupation? Yes, they do use a procedure called identity markers in their computer systems to which are linked together and talk to eachother and that also includes I*R*S*.
No Motla68, "wages" and taxes hasnt been argued properly!
Why do you want to derail and change the subject of my thread?
You sound like controlled opposition......steer away from the truth kinda thing.

motla68
11-11-11, 05:12 PM
No Motla68, "wages" and taxes hasnt been argued properly!
Why do you want to derail and change the subject of my thread?
You sound like controlled opposition......steer away from the truth kinda thing.

No, more like come into the enlightenment away from all that distracts one from the truth.
If you really even had put in any effort to digest what I have said you would see how
pointless this thread really is. Dog chasing tail.

jesse james
11-11-11, 05:50 PM
No, more like come into the enlightenment away from all that distracts one from the truth.
If you really even had put in any effort to digest what I have said you would see how
pointless this thread really is. Dog chasing tail.
Thats because what you said doesnt address the imposition correctly

stoneFree
11-11-11, 06:29 PM
That's it? That's the proof you don't pay taxes nor participate in SS, Jesse? You're comical. The SSA sent me a SS number when I was a teenager, but once I learned I could opt-out of paying into SS by redeeming lawful money, I did. And it worked. I haven't owed, nor paid, employment taxes nor income taxes in years. You appear to be suggesting the statutory route into "wages" is solely responsible for SS tax. Do you think the banksters running this scam have laid out the true nature of their currency scam for all to see?

The question in my mind is... what will you do when it hits the fan Jesse? You can't hide your role in support of this decades old scam. Do you plan to hide from the truth commission? In what corner of the globe?

jesse james
11-11-11, 07:22 PM
That's it? That's the proof you don't pay taxes nor participate in SS, Jesse? You're comical. The SSA sent me a SS number when I was a teenager, but once I learned I could opt-out of paying into SS by redeeming lawful money, I did. And it worked. I haven't owed, nor paid, employment taxes nor income taxes in years. You appear to be suggesting the statutory route into "wages" is solely responsible for SS tax. Do you think the banksters running this scam have laid out the true nature of their currency scam for all to see?

The question in my mind is... what will you do when it hits the fan Jesse? You can't hide your role in support of this decades old scam. Do you plan to hide from the truth commission? In what corner of the globe?
Thats it .....what?
Who are you to think you can demand me to show you something?
I've shown how the IRS assesses a tax and this endorsement idea after the fact isnt gonna stop them when you have deductions being withheld. Thats my point!
None of you have realized this and just want to argue.

It doesnt matter what you use to get out of participating. The bottom line is you must stop having W3's reported other wise you are having information being reported to the SSA which the IRS uses to determine a refund or deficiency.

So what do you tell people who have deductions taken out and tell them to put exempt on the W4 for no withholdings and endorse their paychecks to rceive lawful money?
You dont realize that the employer is still matching his percentage he required to match for FICA and thats leaving a door wide open for the IRS to come and investigate.
That to me is misleading.

Here an example, lets say a fellow decides to endsorse his paycheck to redeem lawful money and his employer is matching and reporting what his 3121(a) "wages" along with 3401(a) "wages".
Now hes endorsing the check, receiving lawful money and saved enough up to pay fopr a truck out right.
Now a year goes by and the IRS sends him a letter stating he had income the following year and didnt file. So over a course of a few letters the IRS decides to come by and seize the truck for payment of delinquent taxes.
But the truck was paid for with lawful money which is techically lawfully his and cannot be seized because it was paid for with lawful money.
Now what?

EZrhythm
11-11-11, 09:12 PM
Thats it .....what?
Who are you to think you can demand me to show you something?
Although this is a type of forum where it is common to see demands for proof, I didn't see one in his reply.

I've shown how the IRS assesses a tax and this endorsement idea after the fact isnt gonna stop them when you have deductions being withheld. Thats my point!
None of you have realized this and just want to argue.

It doesnt matter what you use to get out of participating. The bottom line is you must stop having W3's reported other wise you are having information being reported to the SSA which the IRS uses to determine a refund or deficiency.
Rebut them by affidavit until the reporting stops.

So what do you tell people who have deductions taken out and tell them to put exempt on the W4 for no withholdings and endorse their paychecks to rceive lawful money?
You dont realize that the employer is still matching his percentage he required to match for FICA and thats leaving a door wide open for the IRS to come and investigate.
That to me is misleading.

Here an example, lets say a fellow decides to endsorse his paycheck to redeem lawful money and his employer is matching and reporting what his 3121(a) "wages" along with 3401(a) "wages".
Now hes endorsing the check, receiving lawful money and saved enough up to pay fopr a truck out right.
Now a year goes by and the IRS sends him a letter stating he had income the following year and didnt file. So over a course of a few letters the IRS decides to come by and seize the truck for payment of delinquent taxes.
But the truck was paid for with lawful money which is techically lawfully his and cannot be seized because it was paid for with lawful money.
Now what?

That's a speculation that hasn't been reported yet. Again, rebut the presumptions by affidavit.

jesse james
11-11-11, 10:18 PM
That's a speculation that hasn't been reported yet. Again, rebut the presumptions by affidavit.
Yeah and I'm ridiculed for being painfully honest.
And just like hendrickson who had a better stance of his premise as he had definitions to go by the rebutals didnt fair well for him or for a major part of his readers who used Ctc did it? Like i said.........look at this upside down, inside out, backwards.....every angle under every scenario to see if it holds water.
Rebutals dont work when the law says otherwise. See the hendrickson trial.
You have to stop participating in Social Security period to stop any and all reporting from the employer to the SSA.
Nothing can be reported other wise theres a breach.
5,000.00 penalties are handed out.....can you afford 1, 2 or maybe 3 $5,000.00 penalties because it takes that many before you realize you left a door open?
How do you rebut something you have been participating in the whole time?
The nature of Social Security is you cannot rebut while participating because there are immediate benefits attached. Rebuttals dont work because you wait all year to rebut something at the end while having benefits at your disposal if you need them.
Do you get to ask for the money back from an insurance company at the end of the year because you didnt have any claims for the insurance company to reimburse?
No it doesnt work that way. Social Security works the same way as the insurance scenario!
You either participate and pay the associated taxes (3101 and 3402) or you dont!

Life's-a-Psyop
11-11-11, 10:25 PM
Rebut them by affidavit until the reporting stops.

EZrhythm,
Do you happen to have an example of an affidavit rebutting the presumptions for SS taxes that you could post?

stoneFree
11-12-11, 02:30 AM
Oh this is rich. A new poser with zero credibility lecturing a group of nontaxpayers on the true nature of taxation. Jesse, I suggest you go back to your boss and ask for more help. You're seriously overmatched here, to the point of comedy. Granted you do make use of the whole bag of psycho-tricks, and may be the best liar the banking cartel has in their employ but, really, you can't handle the truth. All you can do is parrot back "no it isn't" like some Monty Python comedian. Your attempts to manage perception won't change reality. You keep bringing up private-credit-endorsing HENDRICKSON to denounce suitors. Suitors redeem lawful money Jesse, that's the key to our success.

But please continue Jesse, it's fun to watch you flail.

http://harveyorgan.blogspot.com

EZrhythm
11-12-11, 03:21 AM
EZrhythm,
Do you happen to have an example of an affidavit rebutting the presumptions for SS taxes that you could post?

Sure do!

I, ____________, affiant, am of sound mind and having achieved at least the age of 25 years deny that;
I have ever received any "income" as defined under UNITED STATES code, Title 26.
I am a willing participant in the UNITED STATES Social Security Administration's social security program.

Further affiant sayeth naught.

All Rights Reserved ___________________ (Great Seal)

____________________ State
____________________ County
Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed ) before me on
this ____________ day of _____________, 20___ by
__________________________________________________ __, proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person who appeared before me.



Witness #1 _________________________
print name _________________________

Witness #2 _________________________
print name _________________________

Witness #3 _________________________
print name _________________________

[Record in the public such as in a newspaper for 30 days, county recorder, district court misc. case jacket, National Republic Registry (http://nationalrepublicregistry.com/) , etc.
Serve certified copies.]

motla68
11-12-11, 06:20 AM
Thats because what you said doesnt address the imposition correctly

ok, lets address imposition. Such authority comes from a law or duty so what would that be ?

Before you try to play the card of receiving a SSN, let me throw this out to you:

5 USC 552A(a)
(13) the term “Federal personnel” means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits).

I am not a federal employee so now what? You will have to show me where I am some sort of statutory employee to perform a duty.

jesse james
11-12-11, 05:20 PM
ok, lets address imposition. Such authority comes from a law or duty so what would that be ?

Before you try to play the card of receiving a SSN, let me throw this out to you:

5 USC 552A(a)
(13) the term “Federal personnel” means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits).

I am not a federal employee so now what? You will have to show me where I am some sort of statutory employee to perform a duty.
Wow Motla68!
I'm simply amazed you cannot connect the dots. You sincerely need to be impartial to allow to see all the facts...........you really have to be honest with yourself. It was the hardest thing I did after being banned from losthorizons, but I wanted to know the truth!
I didnt like it but it was the truth.
Social Security is a retirement program of the Government of the United States. Social Security was enacted by Roosevelt. He acting as president of the US set up a panel that later became the SSA. Still today the SSA is a federal agency and therefor administering a government retirement.
If you ever look at a SS5 form (ssn application form) it is signed under penalty of perjury of being a "US citizen".
The courts know what "US citizens" are:

“...he was not a citizen of the United States, he was a citizen and voter of the State,...” “One may be a citizen of a State an yet not a citizen of the United States”.
McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)

“That there is a citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state,...”
Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)

"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."
Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383


In title 5, the same section you got this "federal personel" from, they define who a "individual" is:
§ 552a. Records maintained on individuals
(2) the term “individual” means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence;

"Federal personel" of 5USC 552(A) and a 14th amemdment "US citizen" are both one in the same Motla68! You dont have to be of colored race to apply for a ssn.
You've read my post and know I bring up 26usc 3101 and 3402 alot. Well did you happen to notice 3101?

§ 3101. Rate of tax
(a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance
In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 3121 (a)) received by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121 (b))—

See anything, motla68, simular in title 5 "federal personel"?

5 USC 552A(a)
(13) the term “Federal personnel” means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits).

Your duty as a "US citizen" is to be regulated and pay any taxes to receive the associated "privileges".
Also, when you see someone do a FOIA to get their records like you see alot of people in the patriot movement do they dont realize the records they wish to get come from Title 5............ § 552a. Records maintained on individuals
You are only in the government record system because the SSA inputs the information.
Thank you for bringing title 5 to this thread.
Title 5 is where "employment" as defined for the Social Security Act originates from................if you didnt know.

Now if theres any doubt click this link which is from the SSA website linking to Title 5 itself. You even see 5USC 552A http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/comp2/D-USC-05.html

motla68
11-12-11, 06:24 PM
Wow Motla68!
I'm simply amazed you cannot connect the dots. You sincerely need to be impartial to allow to see all the facts...........you really have to be honest with yourself. It was the hardest thing I did after being banned from losthorizons, but I wanted to know the truth!
I didnt like it but it was the truth.
Social Security is a retirement program of the Government of the United States. Social Security was enacted by Roosevelt. He acting as president of the US set up a panel that later became the SSA. Still today the SSA is a federal agency and therefor administering a government retirement.
If you ever look at a SS5 form (ssn application form) it is signed under penalty of perjury of being a "US citizen".
The courts know what "US citizens" are:

“...he was not a citizen of the United States, he was a citizen and voter of the State,...” “One may be a citizen of a State an yet not a citizen of the United States”.
McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)

“That there is a citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state,...”
Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)

"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."
Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383


In title 5, the same section you got this "federal personel" from, they define who a "individual" is:
§ 552a. Records maintained on individuals
(2) the term “individual” means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence;

"Federal personel" of 5USC 552(A) and a 14th amemdment "US citizen" are both one in the same Motla68! You dont have to be of colored race to apply for a ssn.
You've read my post and know I bring up 26usc 3101 and 3402 alot. Well did you happen to notice 3101?

§ 3101. Rate of tax
(a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance
In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 3121 (a)) received by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121 (b))—

See anything, motla68, simular in title 5 "federal personel"?

5 USC 552A(a)
(13) the term “Federal personnel” means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits).

Your duty as a "US citizen" is to be regulated and pay any taxes to receive the associated "privileges".
Also, when you see someone do a FOIA to get their records like you see alot of people in the patriot movement do they dont realize the records they wish to get come from Title 5............ § 552a. Records maintained on individuals
You are only in the government record system because the SSA inputs the information.
Thank you for bringing title 5 to this thread.
Title 5 is where "employment" as defined for the Social Security Act originates from................if you didnt know.

Now if theres any doubt click this link which is from the SSA website linking to Title 5 itself. You even see 5USC 552A http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/comp2/D-USC-05.html

The word "person" in legal terminology normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than man. See e.g. 1 U.S.C. sec 1. ; Church of Scientology v. U.S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F.2d 417, 425.

U.S. Code:
TITLE 1 > CHAPTER 1 > § 1
§ 1. Words denoting number, gender, and so forth
" the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals"

True name never signed a SS5. True name never signed a oath of loyalty to be a citizen, Next?

stoneFree
11-12-11, 06:54 PM
It was the hardest thing I did after being banned from losthorizons, but I wanted to know the truth! HA! That's bovine excrement & we all know it. You have no interest in the truth, if so you'd have taken a look at lawful money. You're a one-man chuckle factory Jesse.

But let's consider your premise. The SSA records on "JohnnyCash" show he spent several years participating in the SS scam, paying in over $34,000. And then in 2008 the Earnings Record (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?461&p=5059&posted=1#post5059) shows he fell off the slave wagon. His SS earnings went to zero. Apparently he still earns income, having deposited over $115k lawful money (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?489&p=5184&viewfull=1#post5184) into Peoples United three days ago, so we can't say he's poor. If he is still a US Citizen, does he owe SS taxes on that deposit or not? If so, how has Johnny been able to avoid the BIG BAD IRS and all it's penalties that you continue to scare us with?

And hey, how's that MFing Global takedown (http://news.silverseek.com/SilverSeek/1321022610.php) working out for your boss?

jesse james
11-12-11, 08:36 PM
HA! That's bovine excrement & we all know it. You have no interest in the truth, if so you'd have taken a look at lawful money. You're a one-man chuckle factory Jesse.

But let's consider your premise. The SSA records on "JohnnyCash" show he spent several years participating in the SS scam, paying in over $34,000. And then in 2008 the Earnings Record (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?461&p=5059&posted=1#post5059) shows he fell off the slave wagon. His SS earnings went to zero. Apparently he still earns income, having deposited over $115k lawful money (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?489&p=5184&viewfull=1#post5184) into Peoples United three days ago, so we can't say he's poor. If he is still a US Citizen, does he owe SS taxes on that deposit or not? If so, how has Johnny been able to avoid the BIG BAD IRS and all it's penalties that you continue to scare us with?

And hey, how's that MFing Global takedown (http://news.silverseek.com/SilverSeek/1321022610.php) working out for your boss?
You're put on ignore with this addy to Libra.

jesse james
11-12-11, 08:47 PM
The word "person" in legal terminology normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than man. See e.g. 1 U.S.C. sec 1. ; Church of Scientology v. U.S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F.2d 417, 425.

U.S. Code:
TITLE 1 > CHAPTER 1 > § 1
§ 1. Words denoting number, gender, and so forth
" the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals"

True name never signed a SS5. True name never signed a oath of loyalty to be a citizen, Next?
Doesnt matter what you think. No different than hendricjkson thougfht either as he was wrong.
You are only taking this stance of remaining ignorant of facts because you had the employer terminate the W4. Redeeming lawful money was NOT the cause of your success......................you are in denial!
Besides where do you see the word "person" being used in Title 5?
Really!......................and what makes you think a definition of Title 1 holds any water to Title 5?

motla68
11-12-11, 08:54 PM
Doesnt matter what you think. No different than hendricjkson thougfht either as he was wrong.
You are only taking this stance of remaining ignorant of facts because you had the employer terminate the W4. Redeeming lawful money was NOT the cause of your success......................you are in denial!
Besides where do you see the word "person" being used in Title 5?

If you got something else, bring it. Your opinion is no better then mine, what works for you do not work for me. In my eyes statutes are color of law, non-enforceable without consent. If what people think in here don't matter then why you keep coming back?

stoneFree
11-12-11, 09:36 PM
You're put on ignore ...HA! Hard to argue the truth eh? You've lost Jesse, you & your little fiat money scam too.

jesse james
11-13-11, 12:27 AM
If you got something else, bring it. Your opinion is no better then mine, what works for you do not work for me. In my eyes statutes are color of law, non-enforceable without consent. If what people think in here don't matter then why you keep coming back?
What you call my opinion is based on the law and operation of agencies. I dont give a hoot about you as you have the W4 terminated which is my whole premise which is based on fact, law and operation.
I give a hoot for those who take advice thats not fully thought out. You advise on redeeming lawful money will magically somehow erase the liabilty of those who still have reporting going on.
Lawful money will not help them when the collection hammer falls on them. Take my scenario of the truck being paid out right and the IRS seizing it because the redeeming didnt stop the employer from matching FICA which throws up red flags in the reporting system.
But you are just gonna ignore the hammer for those who receive the seizing hammer..........thats a real nice considerate fella you turned out to be.
And you will have no idea how to help them nor care!
You'll drop the ball and call it a conspiracy.................like it happens all the time.

Life's-a-Psyop
11-13-11, 12:37 AM
Sure do!

I, ____________, affiant, am of sound mind and having achieved at least the age of 25 years deny that;
I have ever received any "income" as defined under UNITED STATES code, Title 26.
I am a willing participant in the UNITED STATES Social Security Administration's social security program.

Further affiant sayeth naught.

All Rights Reserved ___________________ (Great Seal)

____________________ State
____________________ County
Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed ) before me on
this ____________ day of _____________, 20___ by
__________________________________________________ __, proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person who appeared before me.



Witness #1 _________________________
print name _________________________

Witness #2 _________________________
print name _________________________

Witness #3 _________________________
print name _________________________

[Record in the public such as in a newspaper for 30 days, county recorder, district court misc. case jacket, National Republic Registry (http://nationalrepublicregistry.com/) , etc.
Serve certified copies.]

Thank you, EZrhythm, you make it so EZ.

motla68
11-13-11, 02:18 AM
What you call my opinion is based on the law and operation of agencies. I dont give a hoot about you as you have the W4 terminated which is my whole premise which is based on fact, law and operation.
I give a hoot for those who take advice thats not fully thought out. You advise on redeeming lawful money will magically somehow erase the liabilty of those who still have reporting going on.
Lawful money will not help them when the collection hammer falls on them. Take my scenario of the truck being paid out right and the IRS seizing it because the redeeming didnt stop the employer from matching FICA which throws up red flags in the reporting system.
But you are just gonna ignore the hammer for those who receive the seizing hammer..........thats a real nice considerate fella you turned out to be.
And you will have no idea how to help them nor care!
You'll drop the ball and call it a conspiracy.................like it happens all the time.

oh ok like that makes a lot of sense? you do not give a hoot about people whose thoughts you cannot control, but you do give a hoot about people who you can control their thoughts.

There is no magic about lawful money, I have showed law and operation of agencies just as you have. Being that they are an agent of government, a department is not confined to one title or the other, if one title applies, they all apply. I showed you how title 31 makes reference to title 26, have also even seen people have success using title 15 with IRS.

The hammer falls down on us all eventually, that is just life. It is how you deal with it which makes you or breaks you. People do the work and actually study I am happy to answer questions, but people who come to me and say I have to go to court tomorrow what should I say, of course no cannot help someone like that. Nobody is immune from life's experiences, paid my dues through the learning experiences myself, even spent a day in jail once. You fight them you have to be prepared to suffer the consequences or get a competent attorney if such beast exists.

It is just ink on paper, it is not man. People got to open their mind to greater possibilities and get out of the bubble they live in of compartmentalized thought, expand the horizons. Bills are ink on paper, FRNS are ink on paper, receipts are ink on paper, what do they all have in common? They are all securities.
Male, female, young, old, black, white , olive , yellow people all have blood that runs red, yet everyone is so quick to sue everyone else and lose their mind over government paper ownership, one thing is for sure though, you cannot eat most of it.
When you accept that it is not always someone else's fault and face your own true liabilities you earn a little well deserved liberty in your life.

stoneFree
11-13-11, 03:19 AM
Perhaps it might help to look at the typical American small business from inception. Let's say you have a business idea to make the world a better place and make money too. You start a COMPANY, defined as a group of people working together as one for a common goal. You lease some space, hang a shingle, and hire 3 people to help. You have some questions on banking & payroll, Can I use my own bank account or start a new one? Should I do payroll in-house? How? You decide to ask for some help. Business consultant says you need to apply for a federal employer ID number (EIN). Your brother-in-law the tax preparer says you should start a new bank account using that EIN. Finally you confer with that attorney cousin who says your employees should sign Form W4. You think to yourself, are these optional or required? Invariably they all answer similarly: "Yes you havta. Everybody does it. It's just the way things are done!"

So you get an EIN, start a business bank account with it, and every employee signs a W4. You buy some bookkeeping software that calculates deductions based on the W4 info and pay everyone what the computer says. It deducts 3 federal items: Social Security & Medicare (employment taxes) and Fed Withholding (income tax). You then file the W4s away in a cabinet never to see the light of day again. You make regular payments of withheld deductions, plus company contributions of employment taxes, to the US Treasury. At years end you prepare Forms W2 for every employee and send a copy of each to the SSA attached to one Form W3 signed by you under penalty of perjury. These are the rules according to the so-called "experts" so you follow them.

What just happened? Did you bolt upright in the middle of the night saying: My God, what have I done?

to be continued.....

motla68
11-13-11, 03:21 PM
Perhaps it might help to look at the typical American small business from inception. Let's say you have a business idea to make the world a better place and make money too. You start a COMPANY, defined as a group of people working together as one for a common goal. You lease some space, hang a shingle, and hire 3 people to help. You have some questions on banking & payroll, Can I use my own bank account or start a new one? Should I do payroll in-house? How? You decide to ask for some help. Business consultant says you need to apply for a federal employer ID number (EIN). Your brother-in-law the tax preparer says you should start a new bank account using that EIN. Finally you confer with that attorney cousin who says your employees should sign Form W4. You think to yourself, are these optional or required? Invariably they all answer similarly: "Yes you havta. Everybody does it. It's just the way things are done!"

So you get an EIN, start a business bank account with it, and every employee signs a W4. You buy some bookkeeping software that calculates deductions based on the W4 info and pay everyone what the computer says. It deducts 3 federal items: Social Security & Medicare (employment taxes) and Fed Withholding (income tax). You then file the W4s away in a cabinet never to see the light of day again. You make regular payments of withheld deductions, plus company contributions of employment taxes, to the US Treasury. At years end you prepare Forms W2 for every employee and send a copy of each to the SSA attached to one Form W3 signed by you under penalty of perjury. These are the rules according to the so-called "experts" so you follow them.

What just happened? Did you bolt upright in the middle of the night saying: My God, what have I done?

to be continued.....

Why does there always have to be money involved, what about time banks and barter banks?
They call the game monopoly for a reason, the banker holds everything in possession, it all goes back to the box at the end of the day an returned to the owner(the house), put on the shelf for the next time someone needs to use it. A mistake can be corrected at any time, if we use a foreign instrument such as a SS card there is certain liabilities attached to it depending on how you are coming at it for use, are you acting as a beneficiary or are you acting as a Grantor or a trustee?

We do not own the currency, it does not have our stamp or signature on it, at the end of the day something has to be returned to the box to balance the books, if not currency then it needs to be receipts(copies). We do neither and that is why they come after people, that currency is a hot potato in some respects, if you do neither then you have to pay taxes. The only way out of that liability is not use their currency, not use their banks, good luck on that one.
If your intent is to use FRNS this is the automatic assumption because nobody ever showed a different intent otherwise, therefore one must pay rents, the currency is fictionalized for the privilege of doing third party business, this is banking interest that come out of your pocket of possession. However Lawful Money held by treasury for the benefit of all is simply stating that you have no intent to inflict pains and penalties upon your neighbor from profiting off of their backs and want to play more fairly. So lets play more fairly, return it all back to the box at the end of the day, then such services like I*R*S* will not be needed.

The Saskatchewan provincial charter up in Canada says within it: " Lawful Money of Canada has the same meaning as Lawful Money of the United States of America ".
I have sensed in the days of Thomas Jefferson he knew this was coming and is one of the reasons he quoted the following: " the earth is held in usufruct for the living ", do you suppose Lawful Money could be tied into this Usufruct somehow? I think it does, all done for the benefit and glory of God.

The Republic is tenement to the people, the artifacts are everywhere:

"When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every tenement and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old spiritual, "Free at last, free at last. Thank God Almighty, we are free at last."
- Martin Luther King

" have given you a Republic if you can keep it ".
- B. Franklin

shikamaru
11-13-11, 05:54 PM
According to "the Informer":

a) A republic is a corporation in which one contacts with at their own risk. A republic is a tenement to no one for the Constitutions of the States and the United States were never put to vote to the people.
b) SS is voluntary registration for enemies of the banking system.

This is from a broadcast yesterday afternoon. Accept or reject as you will.

motla68
11-13-11, 09:00 PM
According to "the Informer":

a) A republic is a corporation in which one contacts with at their own risk. A republic is a tenement to no one for the Constitutions of the States and the United States were never put to vote to the people.
b) SS is voluntary registration for enemies of the banking system.

This is from a broadcast yesterday afternoon. Accept or reject as you will.

The people had proxies called representatives and statesman.

" the IMF staff believes that the ultimate objective has to be to ensure that sufficient resources are set aside to meet the future needs of Social Security and Medicare. "

http://www.imf.org/external/np/ms/2001/062601.htm

shikamaru
11-13-11, 09:23 PM
The people had proxies called representatives and statesman.

This is presumptive.
Voting and its registration is voluntary.

How does a representative claim to speak for all people?
Does one have representatives?
Does a representative speak for one who has not registered to vote?

True beneficiary of SS is government.

Of course, government wants you in Social Security!

a) Taxes and taxation. SSN is the tax ID number
b) An insurance program (admiralty/maritime)
c) Great program that makes money for government and costs you money
d) Voluntary registration of enemies of the banking system

motla68
11-13-11, 09:38 PM
This is presumptive.
Voting and its registration is voluntary.

Does one have representatives?

True beneficiary of SS is government.

Of course, government wants you in Social Security!

a) Taxes and taxation. SSN is the tax ID number
b) An insurance program (admiralty/maritime)
c) Great program that makes money for government and costs you money
d) Voluntary registration of enemies of the banking system


" The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states. Each state established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government, as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself; and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and, we think, necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself; not of distinct governments, framed by different persons and for different purposes. "
(Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore. 32 U.S. 243)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=32&invol=243

IMF also has a say in the control over FRB.
Are you not getting that it is all under one umbrella?

Next?

shikamaru
11-13-11, 09:48 PM
" The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states. Each state established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government, as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself; and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and, we think, necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself; not of distinct governments, framed by different persons and for different purposes. "
(Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore. 32 U.S. 243)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=32&invol=243

IMF also has a say in the control over FRB.
Are you not getting that it is all under one umbrella?

Next?

Are you presuming you are one of the people of the United States?

Next?

jesse james
11-13-11, 09:49 PM
" The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states. Each state established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government, as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself; and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and, we think, necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself; not of distinct governments, framed by different persons and for different purposes. "
(Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore. 32 U.S. 243)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=32&invol=243

Next?
And the problem with this premise is that there is a legal difference between "The People", who established government for themselves, and the "US citizens".
The pecking order goes like this:
1. The People (above their created government)
2. Federal government (to deal with international affairs, below the People )
3. US citizens (below government or jurisdictional, 14th amendment, being of 2nd class to the People)

You should really try and see why the courts say the things they say Motla68. Take these cites and let them sink in!

“We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of it’s own...”
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

“...he was not a citizen of the United States, he was a citizen and voter of the State,...” “One may be a citizen of a State an yet not a citizen of the United States”.
McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)

“That there is a citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state,...”
Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)

"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."
Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383


“The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other”.
Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)

“There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such”.
Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900)

“The rights and privileges, and immunities which the fourteenth constitutional amendment and Rev. St. section 1979 [U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1262], for its enforcement, were designated to protect, are such as belonging to citizens of the United States as such, and not as citizens of a state”.
Wadleigh v. Newhall 136 F. 941 (1905)

“...rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship”.
Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)

NEXT!

motla68
11-13-11, 10:15 PM
Are you presuming you are one of the people of the United States?

Next?

If you been paying any attention since i got on this forum absolutely not. From what I understand that presumption is reserved for certain people in this forum who identify themselves as suitors if not mistaken.

shikamaru
11-13-11, 10:25 PM
If you been paying any attention since i got on this forum absolutely not. From what I understand that presumption is reserved for certain people in this forum who identify themselves as suitors if not mistaken.

If you were more literate, you would know that presumption means pre-supposition.
Anyone can make a presumption albeit, it is a favored tool of courts.

I'm well aware the IMF has link to the FRB.

What you are failing to weigh is that Social Security is an INSURANCE plan.

INSURANCE falls squarely into ADMIRALTY/MARITIME.

People or rather their parents sign into it by APPLICATION followed by REGISTRATION.

Check out the public administration of boats in English history when you are bored.

EZrhythm
11-13-11, 10:33 PM
Thank you, EZrhythm, you make it so EZ.

That's because IT IS EZ! We humans tend to like to make things more complicated than they need to be, hence many of the attorneys today. ;-)

motla68
11-13-11, 10:35 PM
And the problem with this premise is that there is a legal difference between "The People", who established government for themselves, and the "US citizens".
The pecking order goes like this:
1. The People (above their created government)
2. Federal government (to deal with international affairs, below the People )
3. US citizens (below government or jurisdictional, 14th amendment, being of 2nd class to the People)

You should really try and see why the courts say the things they say Motla68. Take these cites and let them sink in!

“We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of it’s own...”
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

“...he was not a citizen of the United States, he was a citizen and voter of the State,...” “One may be a citizen of a State an yet not a citizen of the United States”.
McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)

“That there is a citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state,...”
Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)

"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."
Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383


“The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other”.
Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)

“There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such”.
Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900)

“The rights and privileges, and immunities which the fourteenth constitutional amendment and Rev. St. section 1979 [U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1262], for its enforcement, were designated to protect, are such as belonging to citizens of the United States as such, and not as citizens of a state”.
Wadleigh v. Newhall 136 F. 941 (1905)

“...rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship”.
Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)

NEXT!

U.S. Constitution
Amendment XIII
Section 1.

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiii

I do not consider myself any one of those you mentioned, so what is your point? Opinions are not law, there is signatures on them constitutions and none of them are mine.
I only posted a court case for the benefit of shikamaru, seem to favor opinions rather then facts. Where is the informer to speak for himself, why must some of you insist speaking for him? He is not here so stop quoting him, I can probably find more holes to poke in some of that cheese.

shikamaru
11-13-11, 10:40 PM
U.S. Constitution
Amendment XIII
Section 1.

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiii
.

I fail to see how this is germane to jesse james' post as a substantive rebuttal.



I only posted a court case for the benefit of shikamaru, seem to favor opinions rather then facts. Where is the informer to speak for himself, why must some of you insist speaking for him? He is not here so stop quoting him, I can probably find more holes to poke in some of that cheese.

And that, my boy, is a pre-supposition i.e. presumption.
A faulty presumption at that of your own creation.
Do you understand what reporting is or must I forward the definition of the word "according" to you?

You probably can do nothing as well. Don't speculate. Go big or go home.

motla68
11-13-11, 10:51 PM
If you were more literate, you would know that presumption means pre-supposition.
Anyone can make a presumption albeit, it is a favored tool of courts.

I'm well aware the IMF has link to the FRB.

What you are failing to weigh is that Social Security is an INSURANCE plan.

INSURANCE falls squarely into ADMIRALTY/MARITIME.

People or rather their parents sign into it by APPLICATION followed by REGISTRATION.

Check out the public administration of boats in English history when you are bored.

The worsed of cheese, that be stinky cheese.

Public welfare insurance, I am not the public and am not licensed by the state to do business, so who is it really for?

shikamaru
11-13-11, 10:52 PM
The worsed of cheese, that be stinky cheese.

Public welfare insurance, I am not the public and am not licensed by the state to do business, so who is it really for?

The true beneficiary is government.

You are big on trusts.
You ever take the time to check out USC 42, Chapter 7, Subchapter II (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sup_01_42_10_7_20_II.html)?

Trust fund is a misnomer however, for the proceeds go directly into general funds.
I got the Supreme Court cases on SS.

Life's-a-Psyop
11-13-11, 11:02 PM
According to "the Informer":

a) A republic is a corporation in which one contacts with at their own risk. A republic is a tenement to no one for the Constitutions of the States and the United States were never put to vote to the people.
b) SS is voluntary registration for enemies of the banking system.

This is from a broadcast yesterday afternoon. Accept or reject as you will.

The Informer was the first, as far as I know, to say that income tax is a user fee for FRN's. He is quite the researcher.

Is there an mp3 available for the broadcast you mentioned?

motla68
11-13-11, 11:05 PM
I fail to see how this is germane to jesse james' post as a substantive rebuttal.



And that, my boy, is a pre-supposition i.e. presumption.
A faulty presumption at that of your own creation.
Do you understand what reporting is or must I forward the definition of the word "according" to you?

You probably can do nothing as well. Don't speculate. Go big or go home.

To show the cheese effect of case cites whether it has anything to do with me.

Am I your boy? talk about presumptions !

Well what is more so, getting your information from a third party(informer) or actually showing the statutes and acts referring to?

By what authority requires me to report?

Same to you , go big or go home. Why are you so hung up on the interpretations of the informer? Do you really think a judge
in court you are speaking to is going to care who the informer is?

shikamaru
11-13-11, 11:05 PM
The Informer was the first, as far as I know, to say that income tax is a user fee for FRN's. He is quite the researcher.

Is there an mp3 available for the broadcast you mentioned?

I'm trying to obtain a broadcast of his and James Montgomery that occurred live this past Saturday.

This should suffice in the meantime: http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?452-The-Informer-James-Montgomery-Dr.-Frank-Wiswall-and-more-!!&highlight=Informer

shikamaru
11-13-11, 11:09 PM
To show the cheese effect of case cites whether it has anything to do with me.

Am I your boy? talk about presumptions !

Well what is more so, getting your information from a third party(informer) or actually showing the statutes and acts referring to?

He gives cites.
If you ask me nicely, I may give them to you.



By what authority requires me to report?

My awesomeness :).



Same to you , go big or go home. Why are you so hung up on the interpretations of the informer? Do you really think a judge
in court you are speaking to is going to care who the informer is?

This is not a court, motla.
Courts have their customs and practices that are their norms.

I'll humor you. I'd use their resources. There is more than enough to successfully administrate one's claims IF one enters that forum.
The wise administrator is the one who avoids controversy and can end controversies before they rise to the level of a hearing.

motla68
11-13-11, 11:19 PM
The Informer was the first, as far as I know, to say that income tax is a user fee for FRN's. He is quite the researcher.

Is there an mp3 available for the broadcast you mentioned?

I will save you the hassle of listening to a whole mp3, I do not think the informer was the first to say that, he just repeating what was heard or seen elsewhere.

It is much better to go right to the source.
user fees
An excise tax, often in the form of a license or supplemental charge, levied to fund a public service.
http://www.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/student/glossary.jsp

Life's-a-Psyop
11-13-11, 11:42 PM
I'm trying to obtain a broadcast of his and James Montgomery that occurred live this past Saturday.

This should suffice in the meantime: http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?452-The-Informer-James-Montgomery-Dr.-Frank-Wiswall-and-more-!!&highlight=Informer

Yes, that fantastic Informer thread, you put together, has plenty of food for thought right now.

motla68
11-13-11, 11:44 PM
He gives cites.
If you ask me nicely, I may give them to you.



My awesomeness :).



This is not a court, motla.
Courts have their customs and practices that are their norms.

I'll humor you. I'd use their resources. There is more than enough to successfully administrate one's claims IF one enters that forum.
The wise administrator is the one who avoids controversy and can end controversies before they rise to the level of a hearing.

No thank you, got bigger fish to contend with.

yes, that profile was overdue being updated, guess we think alike in that respect.

Suppose we were able to make that claim without entering their forum?
Ditto in avoidance. This also applies to not using any case cites, man's statutes, regulations or policies. The simplification of it is just calling things for what they are.. i.e. not consenting to a offer to act as surety for an unvalidated claim. Fight and they got you in the cross hairs.
Affidavits are negative averments therefor affidavits are for subjects, Declarations and Petitions however is for those with incompetence to stand under their courts and that is not a bad thing to say.

shikamaru
11-14-11, 12:10 AM
Yes, that fantastic Informer thread, you put together, has plenty of food for thought right now.

I'll continue adding to it as I dig up more good stuff :).

jesse james
11-14-11, 12:11 AM
That's because IT IS EZ! We humans tend to like to make things more complicated than they need to be, hence many of the attorneys today. ;-)
EZrythm would like me to show you why that affidavit is useless and will more than likely prove an attempt at tax fraud?
They will use that affidavit against you.

shikamaru
11-14-11, 12:12 AM
The Informer was the first, as far as I know, to say that income tax is a user fee for FRN's. He is quite the researcher.

Is there an mp3 available for the broadcast you mentioned?

"The Informer's" opinion was that income tax was a "use and transfer" fee on FRNs.
I remember that webpage on that.

jesse james
11-14-11, 12:46 AM
"The Informer's" opinion was that income tax was a "use and transfer" fee on FRNs.
I remember that webpage on that.
Key word right there......."opinion".

stoneFree
11-14-11, 01:30 AM
And we have demonstrable proof it is a use tax on FRNs. It's clear to me that "jesse james" is a tax attorney.

motla68
11-14-11, 01:42 AM
And we have demonstrable proof it is a use tax on FRNs. It's clear to me that "jesse james" is a tax attorney.

I tried to elude to that earlier in this thread so you could find it on your own, but I guess one has to be a little more blunt about what they are explaining here:

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?489-endorsing-and-SS.......a-big-question!&p=5232&viewfull=1#post5232

Just figured you would have known by now and just forgot, needing a reminder.

jesse james
11-14-11, 02:15 AM
EZrythm you cannot say you have no income and yet use an affidavit stating you are a willing participant of Social Security.
Ever really take an honest look into Social Security?
Earning 3121(a) "wages" is income.
For ease of understanding why you cannot say you dont have income and yet are a willing participant lets say to participate in Social security one earns a Social Security wage. This wage is going to be used as a means of measuring the credits towards benefits.

3121(a) "wages" is defined as all fruit except the term excludes-
1. Strawberry's and-
2. Banana's
Easy enough?

Ok onto defining 3401(a) "wages"
For the purpose of this chapter 3401(a) "wages" is defined as all vegetables except the term excludes-
1. Strawberry's
2. Banana's

Ok now you are wondering if 3401(a) "wages" is defined as all vegetables why in the heck does the 3401(a) "wage" exclude the same exclusions to 3121(a) "wages" that are fruit?
Good question huh?
This is where Hendricksons CtC theory falls apart and the reason why he's in prison today.
See EZRythm this is why the courts say 3401(a) "wages" is expansive to include the private sector along with government employees.
A little logic goes a long way.
By saying whats excluded in 3121(a) for the 3401(a) definition is telling you that 3121(a) "wages" are included in 3401(a).
You know Social Security covers a multitude of jobs or occupations that qualify for crediting the trust account for obtaining immediate and defered benefits offered by the government program.
So instead going the long route of listing every job or occupation they tell you the small list of jobs or occupations that dont qualify for crediting the trust account. This is a much simpler way.

This is exactly how the 3401(a) "wages" are written in Title 26.
Here see for yourself!

(a) Wages
For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include remuneration paid—

(1) for active service performed in a month for which such employee is entitled to the benefits of section 112 (relating to certain combat zone compensation of members of the Armed Forces of the United States) to the extent remuneration for such service is excludable from gross income under such section; or
(2) for agricultural labor (as defined in section 3121 (g)) unless the remuneration paid for such labor is wages (as defined in section 3121 (a)); or
](3) for domestic service in a private home, local college club, or local chapter of a college fraternity or sorority; or[/COLOR]
(4) for service not in the course of the employer’s trade or business performed in any calendar quarter by an employee, unless the cash remuneration paid for such service is $50 or more and such service is performed by an individual who is regularly employed by such employer to perform such service. For purposes of this paragraph, an individual shall be deemed to be regularly employed by an employer during a calendar quarter only if—
(A) on each of some 24 days during such quarter such individual performs for such employer for some portion of the day service not in the course of the employer’s trade or business; or
(B) such individual was regularly employed (as determined under subparagraph (A)) by such employer in the performance of such service during the preceding calendar quarter; or
(5) for services by a citizen or resident of the United States for a foreign government or an international organization; or
(6) for such services, performed by a nonresident alien individual, as may be designated by regulations prescribed by the Secretary; or
[(7) Repealed. Pub. L. 89–809, title I, § 103(k), Nov. 13, 1966, 80 Stat. 1554]
(8)
(A) for services for an employer (other than the United States or any agency thereof)—
(i) performed by a citizen of the United States if, at the time of the payment of such remuneration, it is reasonable to believe that such remuneration will be excluded from gross income under section 911; or
(ii) performed in a foreign country or in a possession of the United States by such a citizen if, at the time of the payment of such remuneration, the employer is required by the law of any foreign country or possession of the United States to withhold income tax upon such remuneration; or
(B) for services for an employer (other than the United States or any agency thereof) performed by a citizen of the United States within a possession of the United States (other than Puerto Rico), if it is reasonable to believe that at least 80 percent of the remuneration to be paid to the employee by such employer during the calendar year will be for such services; or
(C) for services for an employer (other than the United States or any agency thereof) performed by a citizen of the United States within Puerto Rico, if it is reasonable to believe that during the entire calendar year the employee will be a bona fide resident of Puerto Rico; or
(D) for services for the United States (or any agency thereof) performed by a citizen of the United States within a possession of the United States to the extent the United States (or such agency) withholds taxes on such remuneration pursuant to an agreement with such possession; or
](9) for services performed by a duly ordained, commissioned, or licensed minister of a church in the exercise of his ministry or by a member of a religious order in the exercise of duties required by such order[/COLOR]; or
(10)
(A) for services performed by an individual under the age of 18 in the delivery or distribution of newspapers or shopping news, not including delivery or distribution to any point for subsequent delivery or distribution; or (B) for services performed by an individual in, and at the time of, the sale of newspapers or magazines to ultimate consumers, under an arrangement under which the newspapers or magazines are to be sold by him at a fixed price, his compensation being based on the retention of the excess of such price over the amount at which the newspapers or magazines are charged to him, whether or not he is guaranteed a minimum amount of compensation for such services, or is entitled to be credited with the unsold newspapers or magazines turned back; or

EZRythm......prior the 1939 code you didnt see these Social Security exclusions in chapter 24's 3401(a) "wages".
Social Security didnt even exist until 1935.
This is why hendrickson is in jail because he wrote a book of his interpretive opinion that didnt line up with the actual law.
I hope you see why an affidavit such as yours isnt going to do anything except possible be used against you in a court of law.
You say you dont have income but yet by participating in Social Security you do because 3401(a) "wages" covers Social Security wages except for the exclusions. Whats excluded from Social Security is also excluded from the chapter 24 deduction and withholding requirement.
The only way you cannot have statutory "wages" is by either having a job that is excluded from the definition or dont even participate in the program altogether.

jesse james
11-14-11, 02:28 AM
I tried to elude to that earlier in this thread so you could find it on your own, but I guess one has to be a little more blunt about what they are explaining here:

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?489-endorsing-and-SS.......a-big-question!&p=5232&viewfull=1#post5232

Just figured you would have known by now and just forgot, needing a reminder.
Well you better start producing the law that says the use of FRN is the cause of taxation otherwise its just a bunch hearsay in a court setting.

motla68
11-14-11, 03:12 AM
Well you better start producing the law that says the use of FRN is the cause of taxation otherwise its just a bunch hearsay in a court setting.

I better or what? LOL, whatever man. Have you even heard of the Federal Reserve Act?

jesse james
11-14-11, 03:33 AM
I better or what? LOL, whatever man. Have you even heard of the Federal Reserve Act?
Its funny how you think redeeming lawful money will hold in court and yet you cannot procure any statute the courts can use to see your side. Zilch, nada, nothing!
The bottom line is it wasn't redeeming lawful money that attributes your success....................its your nonparticipation in Social Security. Just accept it!
Redeeming doesnt stop reporting to the government. Reporting revolves around participation of SS.
All redeeming is was to get gold back fiat. It was just a transitional period.........................they took it away havent they as you dont get gold backed paper........infact you get the same fiat currency.

Treefarmer
11-14-11, 04:32 AM
EZrythm you cannot say you have no income and yet use an affidavit stating you are a willing participant of Social Security.
Ever really take an honest look into Social Security?
Earning 3121(a) "wages" is income.
For ease of understanding why you cannot say you dont have income and yet are a willing participant lets say to participate in Social security one earns a Social Security wage. This wage is going to be used as a means of measuring the credits towards benefits.

3121(a) "wages" is defined as all fruit except the term excludes-
1. Strawberry's and-
2. Banana's
Easy enough?

Ok onto defining 3401(a) "wages"
For the purpose of this chapter 3401(a) "wages" is defined as all vegetables except the term excludes-
1. Strawberry's
2. Banana's

Ok now you are wondering if 3401(a) "wages" is defined as all vegetables why in the heck does the 3401(a) "wage" exclude the same exclusions to 3121(a) "wages" that are fruit?
Good question huh?
This is where Hendricksons CtC theory falls apart and the reason why he's in prison today.
See EZRythm this is why the courts say 3401(a) "wages" is expansive to include the private sector along with government employees.
A little logic goes a long way.
By saying whats excluded in 3121(a) for the 3401(a) definition is telling you that 3121(a) "wages" are included in 3401(a).
You know Social Security covers a multitude of jobs or occupations that qualify for crediting the trust account for obtaining immediate and defered benefits offered by the government program.
So instead going the long route of listing every job or occupation they tell you the small list of jobs or occupations that dont qualify for crediting the trust account. This is a much simpler way.

This is exactly how the 3401(a) "wages" are written in Title 26.
Here see for yourself!

(a) Wages
For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include remuneration paid—

(1) for active service performed in a month for which such employee is entitled to the benefits of section 112 (relating to certain combat zone compensation of members of the Armed Forces of the United States) to the extent remuneration for such service is excludable from gross income under such section; or
(2) for agricultural labor (as defined in section 3121 (g)) unless the remuneration paid for such labor is wages (as defined in section 3121 (a)); or
](3) for domestic service in a private home, local college club, or local chapter of a college fraternity or sorority; or[/COLOR]
(4) for service not in the course of the employer’s trade or business performed in any calendar quarter by an employee, unless the cash remuneration paid for such service is $50 or more and such service is performed by an individual who is regularly employed by such employer to perform such service. For purposes of this paragraph, an individual shall be deemed to be regularly employed by an employer during a calendar quarter only if—
(A) on each of some 24 days during such quarter such individual performs for such employer for some portion of the day service not in the course of the employer’s trade or business; or
(B) such individual was regularly employed (as determined under subparagraph (A)) by such employer in the performance of such service during the preceding calendar quarter; or
(5) for services by a citizen or resident of the United States for a foreign government or an international organization; or
(6) for such services, performed by a nonresident alien individual, as may be designated by regulations prescribed by the Secretary; or
[(7) Repealed. Pub. L. 89–809, title I, § 103(k), Nov. 13, 1966, 80 Stat. 1554]
(8)
(A) for services for an employer (other than the United States or any agency thereof)—
(i) performed by a citizen of the United States if, at the time of the payment of such remuneration, it is reasonable to believe that such remuneration will be excluded from gross income under section 911; or
(ii) performed in a foreign country or in a possession of the United States by such a citizen if, at the time of the payment of such remuneration, the employer is required by the law of any foreign country or possession of the United States to withhold income tax upon such remuneration; or
(B) for services for an employer (other than the United States or any agency thereof) performed by a citizen of the United States within a possession of the United States (other than Puerto Rico), if it is reasonable to believe that at least 80 percent of the remuneration to be paid to the employee by such employer during the calendar year will be for such services; or
(C) for services for an employer (other than the United States or any agency thereof) performed by a citizen of the United States within Puerto Rico, if it is reasonable to believe that during the entire calendar year the employee will be a bona fide resident of Puerto Rico; or
(D) for services for the United States (or any agency thereof) performed by a citizen of the United States within a possession of the United States to the extent the United States (or such agency) withholds taxes on such remuneration pursuant to an agreement with such possession; or
](9) for services performed by a duly ordained, commissioned, or licensed minister of a church in the exercise of his ministry or by a member of a religious order in the exercise of duties required by such order[/COLOR]; or
(10)
(A) for services performed by an individual under the age of 18 in the delivery or distribution of newspapers or shopping news, not including delivery or distribution to any point for subsequent delivery or distribution; or (B) for services performed by an individual in, and at the time of, the sale of newspapers or magazines to ultimate consumers, under an arrangement under which the newspapers or magazines are to be sold by him at a fixed price, his compensation being based on the retention of the excess of such price over the amount at which the newspapers or magazines are charged to him, whether or not he is guaranteed a minimum amount of compensation for such services, or is entitled to be credited with the unsold newspapers or magazines turned back; or

EZRythm......prior the 1939 code you didnt see these Social Security exclusions in chapter 24's 3401(a) "wages".
Social Security didnt even exist until 1935.
This is why hendrickson is in jail because he wrote a book of his interpretive opinion that didnt line up with the actual law.
I hope you see why an affidavit such as yours isnt going to do anything except possible be used against you in a court of law.
You say you dont have income but yet by participating in Social Security you do because 3401(a) "wages" covers Social Security wages except for the exclusions. Whats excluded from Social Security is also excluded from the chapter 24 deduction and withholding requirement.
The only way you cannot have statutory "wages" is by either having a job that is excluded from the definition or dont even participate in the program altogether.

Thank you jesse james for your explanation of Pete HENDRICKSON's errors.

Now that you have brought up details of USC title 26, could you also please discuss how a person, who is a US citizen, becomes subject to title 26 statutes?

Since title 26 has never been enacted into positive law, but is only "prima facie evidence of the law" (http://www.llsdc.org/attachments/wysiwyg/544/usc-pos-law-titles.pdf), and since the Internal Revenue Service is not an agency of the Unites States Government
730,
I would like to know by what contract or mechanism a US citizen becomes subject to the Internal Revenue Code?

By way of explanation, it would also be nice if you could mention to what the Revenue Code is Internal?

Thank you for your participation in this forum.
I appreciate your inquisitiveness.

motla68
11-14-11, 05:07 AM
Its funny how you think redeeming lawful money will hold in court and yet you cannot procure any statute the courts can use to see your side. Zilch, nada, nothing!
The bottom line is it wasn't redeeming lawful money that attributes your success....................its your nonparticipation in Social Security. Just accept it!
Redeeming doesnt stop reporting to the government. Reporting revolves around participation of SS.
All redeeming is was to get gold back fiat. It was just a transitional period.........................they took it away havent they as you dont get gold backed paper........infact you get the same fiat currency.

LOL LOL, yeah this is getting more comical by the post. Guess you have not perused through the archives of this forum yet. I have succeeded in court, setoff county valerim taxes on property, setoff yearly renewal of a vehicle registration, hospital bill, stopped check cashing fees all using lawful money language on it and most I did not even mention the statute cite for it. In stopping check cashing fee part of their procedure is to put a SSN into their card reader to get the job done. Yes I do use a SSN but it is not in the same context as your use of it, I am listed as Grantor, not beneficiary and I did not even have to sign anything to get it.

COURT. The person and suit of the sovereign; the place where the sovereign sojourns with his regal retinue, wherever that may be. [Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 318.]

COURT. An agency of the sovereign created by it directly or indirectly under its authority, consisting of one or more officers, established and maintained for the purpose of hearing and determining issues of law and fact regarding legal rights and alleged violations thereof, and of applying the sanctions of the law, authorized to exercise its powers in the course of law at times and places previously determined by lawful authority. [Isbill v. Stovall, Tex.Civ.App., 92 S.W.2d 1067, 1070; Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, page 425]

Court is wherever you are at any given time when communicating with a commercial agent, it is then you are first identified who you are and what jurisdiction before proceedings continue.

See the book of Galatians chapter 4, ascending from the age of minority to the age of majority.

jesse james
11-14-11, 12:56 PM
LOL LOL, yeah this is getting more comical by the post. Guess you have not perused through the archives of this forum yet. I have succeeded in court, setoff county valerim taxes on property, setoff yearly renewal of a vehicle registration, hospital bill, stopped check cashing fees all using lawful money language on it and most I did not even mention the statute cite for it. In stopping check cashing fee part of their procedure is to put a SSN into their card reader to get the job done. Yes I do use a SSN but it is not in the same context as your use of it, I am listed as Grantor, not beneficiary and I did not even have to sign anything to get it.

COURT. The person and suit of the sovereign; the place where the sovereign sojourns with his regal retinue, wherever that may be.

COURT. An agency of the sovereign created by it directly or indirectly under its authority, consisting of one or more officers, established and maintained for the purpose of hearing and determining issues of law and fact regarding legal rights and alleged violations thereof, and of applying the sanctions of the law, authorized to exercise its powers in the course of law at times and places previously determined by lawful authority. [Isbill v. Stovall, Tex.Civ.App., 92 S.W.2d 1067, 1070; Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, page 425]

Court is wherever you are at any given time when communicating with a commercial agent, it is then you are first identified who you are and what jurisdiction before proceedings continue.

See the book of Galatians chapter 4, ascending from the age of minority to the age of majority.
Ahhhhh..............more pieces to the puzzle that redeeming money is NOT the source of your success.
You said you are listed as "grantor" and not beneficiary of the ssn.

I posted for johnthetaxist....aka "stonefree", "johnycash" in another forum a statute pretty much explaining this little tid bit of info "issues of law and fact regarding legal rights and alleged violations thereof" you listed above in Isbill v. Stovall, Tex.Civ.App., 92 S.W.2d 1067, 1070; Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, page 425.


TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1983
1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, [B]subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
My question posed to Johnthetaxist better known as "Johnycash" or "stonefree" here on this forum was how can the government force anybody to participate in a welfare program causing them to become a 2nd class "US citizen" who cannot access certain protections of the Bill of Rights as one of the People?

Thanks for agreeing with me.

stoneFree
11-14-11, 01:34 PM
Perhaps jesse hasn't been called.

"But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God."
1 Corinthians 1:23

jesse james
11-14-11, 01:46 PM
Thank you jesse james for your explanation of Pete HENDRICKSON's errors.

Now that you have brought up details of USC title 26, could you also please discuss how a person, who is a US citizen, becomes subject to title 26 statutes?

Since title 26 has never been enacted into positive law, but is only "prima facie evidence of the law" (http://www.llsdc.org/attachments/wysiwyg/544/usc-pos-law-titles.pdf), and since the Internal Revenue Service is not an agency of the Unites States Government
730,
I would like to know by what contract or mechanism a US citizen becomes subject to the Internal Revenue Code?

By way of explanation, it would also be nice if you could mention to what the Revenue Code is Internal?

Thank you for your participation in this forum.
I appreciate your inquisitiveness.
Your answer to all these questions is understanding where you stand within the law/laws.
Know the difference between a "US citizens" and the "People".
I gave plenty of court cites explaining how to identify the difference.
I'd start with reading the jurisdiction clause of the 14th amendment, then read those cites I provided, look up an SS5 form to see what or who you are under perjury of being, and read the IRS website about what or who gives them authority to collect.
Read regulation 26CFR 1.1-1(c) to get an idea whos being taxed and subject to title 26.


Sec. 1.1-1 Income tax on individuals.
(a) General rule.
(1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States and, to the extent provided by section 871(b) or 877(b), on the income of a nonresident alien individual

Any mention of using FRN as the cause for the tax imposition in this regulation?......................nope, nada, zilch, nothing to that nature. So do you beleive the Reserve Act from 1913 that doesnt say squat about imposing anything has anything at all to do with citizenship, 14th amendment, and the impositions found Title 26?


(c) Who is a citizen. Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen.


Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

Heres what the IRS has to say about the 14th amandment.


1. Contention: Taxpayer is not a “citizen” of the United States, thus not subject to the federal income tax laws.
Some individuals argue that they have rejected citizenship in the United States in favor of state citizenship; therefore, they are relieved of their federal income tax obligations. A variation of this argument is that a person is a free born citizen of a particular state and thus was never a citizen of the United States. The underlying theme of these arguments is the same: the person is not a United States citizen and is not subject to federal tax laws because only United States citizens are subject to these laws.

The Law: The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution defines the basis for United States citizenship, stating that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The Fourteenth Amendment therefore establishes simultaneous state and federal citizenship. Claims that individuals are not citizens of the United States but are solely citizens of a sovereign state and not subject to federal taxation have been uniformly rejected by the courts. The IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2007-22, 2007-14 I.R.B. 866, warning taxpayers of the consequences of making this frivolous argument.
See any mention of the IRS taxing the People of the United States of America?.......................................... ....nope! and they cant as the People are above their government!
But "US citizens" are NOT above the Peoples government!.......................they are subjects!

This is my arguement for those redeeming a check and yet have taxes deducted and withheld.......................they have jurisdiction over you. The 14th amendment gives them jurisdiction as you are still redeeming under their jurisdiction.
You have to first understand where you are standing within the law to identify the capacity you are operating in. Once you understand this you can easily figure a way out of the jurisdiction.
EZRythm thinks he can just write up an affidavit that he attest to not having income, but yet admits he is willing to participant in the same mechanism that turns his earnings into bonified reportable statutory "income". And the kicker here is hes sending this affidavit to a government agency that will use it against him as an attempt at tax fraud................how ignorant or smart is that?

Treefarmer
11-14-11, 04:12 PM
Your answer to all these questions is understanding where you stand within the law/laws.
Know the difference between a "US citizens" and the "People".
I gave plenty of court cites explaining how to identify the difference.
I'd start with reading the jurisdiction clause of the 14th amendment, then read those cites I provided, look up an SS5 form to see what or who you are under perjury of being, and read the IRS website about what or who gives them authority to collect.
Read regulation 26CFR 1.1-1(c) to get an idea whos being taxed and subject to title 26.


Any mention of using FRN as the cause for the tax imposition in this regulation?......................nope, nada, zilch, nothing to that nature. So do you beleive the Reserve Act from 1913 that doesnt say squat about imposing anything has anything at all to do with citizenship, 14th amendment, and the impositions found Title 26?


Thank you for bringing up 26CFR 1.1-1(c) jesse james.
Would you add the IRC definition of the term "income" as well?

Now my question is still not answered:
I would like to know by what contract or mechanism a US citizen becomes subject to the Internal Revenue Code?

Are you saying that the 14th Amendment makes US citizens automatically subject to any private law, such as title 26, of any private entity, such as the privately owned international banking cartel that is known as the Federal Reserve Bank, whose private collection agency is known as the Internal Revenue Service?

What, exactly, is the IRS internal of or to?

I don't see how the 14th Amendment can enslave a whole country full of people to someone's private law, i.e. title 26, when the Amendment which immediately precedes it, the 13th, prohibits enslavement?

Even though your case cites had to do with distinguishing between US citizens and people, they do not explain how people are turned into inferior US citizen subjects.
For the people to become subjects of a private entity which is not governed by the Constitution of the United States, they must have entered some contract with that private entity?
This cannot be the contract with the Social Security Administration, because the SSA claims to be a public entity of the United States Government, which claims to be by and for the people.

I would appreciate it if you would address these questions.
Thank you.

fishnet
11-14-11, 04:18 PM
jesse james,

He is a man, earning lawful money in the capacity of a man, exempt from levy on two fronts. He is not the person, as defined by any man created entity. The person is still a participant in Social Security. Get yourself a Black's law dictionary and look up person and man. Better yet, get you a King James Version Bible and see what a man is and see what a person is.

stoneFree
11-14-11, 04:51 PM
Hmm, jesse spinning his wheels, not getting any traction amongst the suitors. :p

Bank run in Europe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzGJWtYnAdE

jesse james
11-14-11, 06:10 PM
Thank you for bringing up 26CFR 1.1-1(c) jesse james.
Would you add the IRC definition of the term "income" as well?
Not sure what you mean by this!

Now my question is still not answered:
I would like to know by what contract or mechanism a US citizen becomes subject to the Internal Revenue Code?
See 26CFR 1.1-1 for that answer. I supplied the the regulation but I cant make you think on your own..........leading a horse to water kind of thingy!;)

Are you saying that the 14th Amendment makes US citizens automatically subject to any private law, such as title 26, of any private entity, such as the privately owned international banking cartel that is known as the Federal Reserve Bank, whose private collection agency is known as the Internal Revenue Service?
Nope, I'm saying the 14th introduces a voluntary jurisdictional citizenship. Title 26 isnt private law, who told you that? Title 26 also allows for the collection of Constitutional tariffs and such.
The IRS is the collection agency of the US Treasury, not the federal reserve. Again question who is telling you these things. I'd stop listening to who ever youare listening to and do your own dilligent study.

What, exactly, is the IRS internal of or to?
The US federal government!
A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."
Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383

I don't see how the 14th Amendment can enslave a whole country full of people to someone's private law, i.e. title 26, when the Amendment which immediately precedes it, the 13th, prohibits enslavement?
1. Title 26 isnt private.
2. Amendment 13 addresses "involuntary servitude" not your voluntary participation in a social welfare program that you attest to being a subject under penalty of perjury. Doesnt matter how or who applied for a ssn. What matters is you can stop being a subject at any time.

Even though your case cites had to do with distinguishing between US citizens and people, they do not explain how people are turned into inferior US citizen subjects.
For the people to become subjects of a private entity which is not governed by the Constitution of the United States, they must have entered some contract with that private entity?
This cannot be the contract with the Social Security Administration, because the SSA claims to be a public entity of the United States Government, which claims to be by and for the people.
Please see the SS5 form. Its signed under penalty of perjury of being a "US citizen". You signed the back of the ssn card dont you? And you used the number didnt you?
Your account is active correct?...........then you somewhere or somehow told the US government.......not the federal reserve you wish to be treated as a US citizen.
I would appreciate it if you would address these questions.
Thank you.


Hope this helps

stoneFree
11-14-11, 08:31 PM
Whatever water you're selling jesse, this horse ain't drinking it. As an addendum to my "typical American company" post, let's look at my average employee. He earns $800 per week. The payroll software calculates his pay with the following federal deductions (married with 1 W4 allowance):

800.00 gross
-70.00 Federal withholding (income tax)
-33.60 Social Security
-11.60 Medicare
-------
684.80 net pay

And then, software says my company must kick in the following amounts towards this employee's account:
49.60 Social Security
11.60 Medicare
4.80 Federal unemployment
------
$66.00

So, 115.20 deducted plus 66. from my company equals $181.20 to the US Treasury, a/k/a The Washington-Wall Street oligarchy. To be on the receiving end of this amount from every employee each & every week is quite a nice little scam, you must admit. And all operated in conjunction with the US government. Understandably, jesse's boss doesn't want the truth revealed, doesn't want us to learn IT'S ALL OPTIONAL.

shikamaru
11-14-11, 08:58 PM
Key word right there......."opinion".

It is my understanding courts issue their opinions as do agencies, departments, and bureaus.

Its all OPINION.

The real question is who has a monopoly on force to enforce their opinion on others?

Treefarmer
11-14-11, 09:46 PM
Hope this helps


Would you add the IRC definition of the term "income" as well?
Not sure what you mean by this!

What I mean is that if the IRC defines who has to pay income tax, then surely it defines what exactly is "income", because it's obviously not all that comes in.


Are you saying that the 14th Amendment makes US citizens automatically subject to any private law, such as title 26, of any private entity, such as the privately owned international banking cartel that is known as the Federal Reserve Bank, whose private collection agency is known as the Internal Revenue Service?
Nope, I'm saying the 14th introduces a voluntary jurisdictional citizenship. Title 26 isnt private law, who told you that? Title 26 also allows for the collection of Constitutional tariffs and such.
The IRS is the collection agency of the US Treasury, not the federal reserve. Again question who is telling you these things. I'd stop listening to who ever youare listening to and do your own dilligent study.


In this case I was listening to the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO, which is why I also included the source document:
731
see page 2, where I highlighted it for convenience.
Are you saying that the United States of America, through undersigned counsel lied in the cognizance of a United States District Court?

The reason I think that title 26 must be private law is because it was never enacted as positive law (http://www.llsdc.org/attachments/wysiwyg/544/usc-pos-law-titles.pdf).
So how can it be a law of the United States of America?


Please see the SS5 form. Its signed under penalty of perjury of being a "US citizen". You signed the back of the ssn card dont you? And you used the number didnt you?
Your account is active correct?...........then you somewhere or somehow told the US government.......not the federal reserve you wish to be treated as a US citizen.

If admitting to being a US citizen amounts to becoming a voluntary slave, then it is only so by guile and deceit. At no point in history were the American people ever alerted to the fact that participation in Social Security is akin to slavery, because it converts a free man or woman into a debt slave without any constitutionally protected rights.
If Social Security is a contract in which the participants agree to waive all their unalienable rights, then somewhere there must be a disclosure of this fact. Otherwise, there is no meeting of the minds, and therefore no contract.

Can you point out where and when the American people were officially informed of the fact that voluntarily admitting to being a US citizen will make one a subject of an extra-constitutional statutory dictatorship?

Thank you for your time jesse james.

jesse james
11-14-11, 10:28 PM
What I mean is that if the IRC defines who has to pay income tax, then surely it defines what exactly is "income", because it's obviously not all that comes in.

Here is what the IRC says "income" is. No need to go any further than number 1 for the "employed".

Sec. 61. Gross income defined.
(a) General definition.
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commisions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
Compensation for services = "employment" by definition 3121(b) to be exact.
Havent I've been saying if you are "employed" as far as Social Security is concerned you are not required to have deductions and withholding for occupations that are excluded?........yes I have been saying that the whole time.
So common sense says if you are not under a W4 agreement then the same can be said for the requirement of withhold and deduction..................not required......it voluntary to participate and therefore not statutory "income". The same as it was before 1935 when millions didnt file taxes because they didnt have to.

In this case I was listening to the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO, which is why I also included the source document:
731
see page 2, where I highlighted it for convenience.
Are you saying that the United States of America, through undersigned counsel lied in the cognizance of a United States District Court?
Have no idea as I didnt listen or click the link.............and dont care to. If a lie has been said its of no concern of mine. I'm only focused and concerned with my Bill of Rights first and foremost, as you should be. They can lie to themselves all they want!
Ok so I did click on your file. The thing you should be more concerned about is the corporation "United States" is not the same as the United States of America. The USofA is the states united as in several states. The US is a corporation.

The reason I think that title 26 must be private law is because it was never enacted as positive law (http://www.llsdc.org/attachments/wysiwyg/544/usc-pos-law-titles.pdf).
So how can it be a law of the United States of America?
If I were you I would research both positive and nonpositive to get a better understanding what it is. Some here beleive I'm a lawyer........I'm not any such thing I'm an union electrician (electronics degree in aviation) whos been studying tax laws since 1995. I have a few lawyer friends and a very good public defender friend from California who have really helped.

If admitting to being a US citizen amounts to becoming a voluntary slave, then it is only so by guile and deceit. At no point in history were the American people ever alerted to the fact that participation in Social Security is akin to slavery, because it converts a free man or woman into a debt slave without any constitutionally protected rights.
If Social Security is a contract in which the participants agree to waive all their unalienable rights, then somewhere there must be a disclosure of this fact. Otherwise, there is no meeting of the minds, and therefore no contract.
Yes there is a disclosure pamphlet that comes along with the ssn application stating the beneficiary doesnt have to use the number as Rights are effected. Seen this with my very eyes when my wife went behind my back and applied for the ssn at the hospital for my daughter.
Also, ignorance of the law is no excuse. We are to know and understand the laws.

Can you point out where and when the American people were officially informed of the fact that voluntarily admitting to being a US citizen will make one a subject of an extra-constitutional statutory dictatorship?
1935 when the Act was enacted. I know it really sucks but we are to understand the law and not break it that applies.
Thank you for your time jesse james.

Thank you for not being of a demeaning nature as some here are.

stoneFree
11-14-11, 10:35 PM
continuing the narrative...

So then an employee comes to me saying he wants to opt-out of social security and all "federal employment" and can I "stop the withholding?"
"Let me check into that." I answer. I put in one last call to my attorney relative with a couple questions:
"Is social security optional?"
"Can you give me the regulation requiring all my workers to sign a W4?"

My attorney launches into a long rambling explanation mentioning 3121 "wages" and citizenship & penalties, etc. I sense I'm being snowed. In fact, his speech is very reminiscent of "jesse" here! With the way Washington DC has been $pending & destroying liberty, I begin to wonder if I've been victimized too. After all, I stand to save $66 a week by letting this guy out of withholding.

I call mister "Free Man" employee into my office. "If you're willing to handle all the risk involved here, I'm willing to cut out the federales" I say.
"Great. I'm willing."
So together we dig out the W4 from the cabinet & shred it (I must add here the W4 was never sent anywhere, the SSA & IRS don't know it exists. I asked my workers to sign it and I feel somewhat guilty about that). I pull up my payroll software and sure enough, all the options are there to stop withholding, SS, Medicare & FUTA and pay him a full $800 paycheck:

http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/8558/taxw.png

motla68
11-15-11, 02:37 AM
Have you all considered the conversion, do you covert to U.S. Currency or do you convert to equity? Anyone see the last episode of Little House on the Prairie?
Your using a currency other men created, your using statutes other men created. Watch that episode on youtube and see if this makes any sense to you?

jesse james
11-15-11, 03:42 AM
Have you all considered the conversion, do you covert to U.S. Currency or do you convert to equity? Anyone see the last episode of Little House on the Prairie?
Your using a currency other men created, your using statutes other men created. Watch that episode on youtube and see if this makes any sense to you?

equity is a law form....not money!
Pleae explain

shikamaru
11-15-11, 03:51 AM
equity is a law form....not money!

Technically, it is a remedial form of law deriving from the Law of Remedies.

Depending on context, equity has a financial sense as well.

Equity, in a financial context, is the residual claim or interest of the most junior class of investors in assets after all liabilities have been paid.

motla68
11-15-11, 03:57 AM
equity is a law form....not money!

Maxim: Those who seek equity must do equity

Maxim: Equity follows the law.

stoneFree
11-15-11, 04:08 AM
So my other employees see FreeMan getting his full $800 paycheck with no deductions, no problems, and naturally, get a little inquisitive. He starts to teach us all about lawful money & this www.savingtosuitorsclub.net website. They want a full paycheck too; can't blame 'em in this economy.

So I call a company meeting. I tell my workers I'm considering cutting loose from the feds but I wish to hear them out. "Does anyone here still want to pay into the federal SS, Medicare, & Income Tax system?"
"NO!" is the resounding answer. Apparently they all have enough "credits" to get the SS/Medicare bennies when they get old, no point paying in more. So that settled it. I started a new LAWFUL MONEY bank account for company use. On Saturday, I dissolved my company with the federal EIN, and on Monday reopened with no federal connection. Of course my customers never knew the difference. But with my workers getting full pay now - whoo doggie - you'd think I was the World's Best Boss.

Chex
11-15-11, 12:03 PM
Key words used were: disclosure pamphlet that comes along with the ssn application (http://www.google.com/search?q=disclosure+pamphlet+that+comes+along+with +the+ssn+application+&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-ContextMenu&ie=&oe=).

You’re using statutes other men created: synopsis (http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v69n2/v69n2p55.html)

Retirement; how is that being employed?

stoneFree
11-15-11, 06:38 PM
So at daily breaktime we often talk about the economy, the depreciating dollar, the big fraud centered around banking & finance, the inevitable collapse of central banking (a mathematical certainty), which appears to be starting in Europe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzGJWtYnAdE&feature=youtu.be). We conclude that eventually the unbacked paper dollar will be completely destroyed. I offer to help my workers by paying in the currency of their choice. For convenience Ann wants continued weekly payment in $800 lawful money cash, Freeman wants 20 ounces of silver, and Bob chooses 350 bitcoins (http://www.weusecoins.com/). I accommodate them all, making sure the silver & bitcoin are purchased with lawful money.

jesse james
11-15-11, 08:35 PM
So at daily breaktime we often talk about the economy, the depreciating dollar, the big fraud centered around banking & finance, the inevitable collapse of central banking (a mathematical certainty), which appears to be starting in Europe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzGJWtYnAdE&feature=youtu.be). We conclude that eventually the unbacked paper dollar will be completely destroyed. I offer to help my workers by paying in the currency of their choice. For convenience Ann wants continued weekly payment in $800 lawful money cash, Freeman wants 20 ounces of silver, and Bob chooses 350 bitcoins (http://www.weusecoins.com/). I accommodate them all, making sure the silver & bitcoin are purchased with lawful money.
You're so full of it..................it smells clear over here in Iowa.

Nothing more than an attempt to derail this thread. Nobodies replying as they arent listening except you using a different addy.
Very sad!

stoneFree
11-15-11, 08:57 PM
Iowa HA! 'smatter jesse? Thread not going as planned? Guess you forgot you're supposed to have me on 'ignore' :o

Of course my employees are overjoyed to be paid with no reporting. Our discussion turns towards the Federal Reserve scam and what can we, as a company, do to help. To help our customers, to help bring down central banking, to help the country. After all, we don't want to be seen as aiding & abetting what is gradually becoming known as a criminal enterprise. We toy with not accepting Federal Reserve Notes /Credit at all. But that seems a bit harsh to start with. We decide to offer a healthy discount, but only if customers pay in NON-Fed Reserve money. For example silver & gold coins and rounds. The discounts are also available when paying with Goldmoney & bitcoin digitally.

jesse james
11-15-11, 09:04 PM
Threads actually very productive. And yes you are on ignore.
Nobodies replying to your post except for you under a different name. Thats sad....it really is!
I dont buy anything you have to say. Your creditability is reduced to derailing this thread. Everytime someone asks me a queation and I asnwer it you pile on more quatloos accusations.
I highly doubt you have employees not wanting the benefit of "unemployment" in this economy.
Lets say you do have employees...........do they realize they arent working towards immediate unemployment and under employment benefits? And if you do have these so called employees what makes you think they wont sign up for unemployment? You only need the last two years of credits to receive unemployment, after that they fall off and arent counted! So after working for two years of not crediting their account they arent eligable for unemployment..................might have some pissed off employees when they find your lawful money theory screwed them out of unemployment.
Do these so called employees understand this?
I'll place bets, if you really do have employees, that is when the SSA does an investigation on you and starts the ball rolling for the IRS to come in and start asking questions that you cannot defend.
See theres my whole reason of being here...........can you defend yourself if and when it comes time?
Its gonna be your word against theirs! And guess what end of the stick you will end up with if you are found talking them into a story about lawful money having no statutes backing it up?
You want to paint me up to be an evil lawyer from quatloos, but to the contrary I'm here asking the hard hard questions that need be answered to defend oneself.
Of course this is if you really do have employees which I highly doubt you do.

There was a case where an employer went to jail, and still serving time, for talking his employees from participating in SS.........simkenia or something like that spelling.

I've read better "see spot run" books with my daughter than your make beleive stories.

stoneFree
11-15-11, 09:57 PM
So business is booming for our little company, I've had to hire 2 more people. Big Christmas bash every year. I bought major medical insurance for all employees (I pay all the small Dr. bills). I've started stashing away retirement money for each employee. And our NON-FRN discount has been very popular. I've been surprised how much silver/gold our customers have hoarded and are now using as payment. We've been featured in KTFA as "LOCAL BUSINESS HELPS END THE FED."

Freeman pulls me aside one day for a little heart to heart. He warns that with all our anti-FED stuff we might attract the attention of the banking cartel. I tell him that's just conspiracy talk, our little company is really insignificant in the grand scheme. Oh no, he says, they're VERY protective of their monopoly, and that they're now in partnership with government actors. He says he's encountered their minions all over the place, even obscure corners of the internet. Said he even found one posing as a union electrician (electronics degree in aviation) whos been studying tax laws since 1995.
"No way," I say, "that's just beyond the pale."
"Ya way," he says. "You have no idea what these guys are capable of."

Treefarmer
11-15-11, 10:23 PM
So business is booming for our little company, I've had to hire 2 more people. Big Christmas bash every year. I bought major medical insurance for all employees (I pay all the small Dr. bills). I've started stashing away retirement money for each employee. And our NON-FRN discount has been very popular. I've been surprised how much silver/gold our customers have hoarded and are now using as payment. We've been featured in KTFA as "LOCAL BUSINESS HELPS END THE FED."

Freeman pulls me aside one day for a little heart to heart. He warns that with all our anti-FED stuff we might attract the attention of the banking cartel. I tell him that's just conspiracy talk, our little company is really insignificant in the grand scheme. Oh no, he says, they're VERY protective of their monopoly, and that they're now in partnership with government actors. He says he's encountered their minions all over the place, even obscure corners of the internet. Said he even found one posing as a union electrician (electronics degree in aviation) whos been studying tax laws since 1995.
"No way," I say, "that's just beyond the pale."
"Ya way," he says. "You have no idea what these guys are capable of."

That's pretty funny stoneFree; I was wondering where you were going with this;)

jesse james
11-16-11, 01:31 PM
That's pretty funny stoneFree; I was wondering where you were going with this;)
More of a comic relief to himself.
He thought he was smart and every angel covered, but turns that wasn't the case in another forum.
He called me "delusional" over the issue of title 12 section 411 after asking him where in 411 can you point me to the statute that says the use of frn imposes the income tax.
He kept posting nonsense to which I replied I can provide one consequental Social Security statutes that imposes a direct tax. And provide a second imposition statute relating to being Social Security 3121(b) "employed" that is the direct cause for millions of Americans to be subject to deductions and withholdings for the federal income tax.
He didnt like what I posted and then started to attack my integrity by refering me as a "bankster" and this Larry guy over at quatloos.
Me being me I didnt think he understood the meaning of "delusional" so I posted the definition in relation to his stance with 411 not having any word of any kind of imposition.
Well heres the definition:

de·lu·sion (d-lzhn)
n.
A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness.

Well Stonefree here going by other names like Johnthetaxist and aka.....Johny Cash cannot provide evidence in support of 411 imposing anything muchless the income tax. He couldnt prove his false beleif in spite my validated Social Security evidence to his contrary.....well he just amuses himself by making up all kinds of stories which I can only guess is dealing with his denial.
I mean I dont really know about this guy. Hes proven himself to be somebody I'd keep at arms length away, so I just put him on ignore and check in to what he has to say every now and then.
I mean really........he has to make up another account under a different name to fool his fellow forum board members to validate made up stories?
Come on........!

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me and that isnt happening now is it Libre!

stoneFree
11-16-11, 01:47 PM
HA! You're a bigger poser than Al Gore. Remember when he posed in fresh-pressed khakis for that photo-op and tried to chop wood? Now that was funny. Loser.

Well Jesse, DeutscheBank head Ackerman is going down:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,797939,00.html

As you may know, he's been complicit in hiding funds for Barack & Mochelle:
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/72701447?access_key=key-262kyu7r388ttbdgmjr

That's -1 for the banking cabal and +1 for our side. And it won't be long before it's clear to everyone just who here is delusional.

jesse james
11-16-11, 03:43 PM
HA! You're a bigger poser than Al Gore. Remember when he posed in fresh-pressed khakis for that photo-op and tried to chop wood? Now that was funny. Loser.

Well Jesse, DeutscheBank head Ackerman is going down:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,797939,00.html

As you may know, he's been complicit in hiding funds for Barack & Mochelle:
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/72701447?access_key=key-262kyu7r388ttbdgmjr

That's -1 for the banking cabal and +1 for our side. And it won't be long before it's clear to everyone just who here is delusional.

I told you before and I'll tell you again on this forum....................banking has nothing at all to do with Social Security and your right to participate in Social Security.
The banks will go down and the imposition and liability found within the Social Security Act will still remain.

shikamaru
11-16-11, 04:50 PM
I told you before and I'll tell you again on this forum....................banking has nothing at all to do with Social Security ....

Try opening an account with a bank sans an SSN albeit the tie in is for purposes of taxation reporting.



... and your right to participate in Social Security.


We concur on this point.

stoneFree
11-16-11, 04:55 PM
careful Shikamaru, he gets a little testy when shown to be a liar.

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/4556/governmentbondslarge.jpg

".. if we can persuade people all through the country, when their salary checks come in, to deposit them in new accounts, which will be held in trust and kept in one of the new forms I have mentioned, we shall have made progress."

The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin Delano Roosevelt - 1933, The Year of Crisis.

Treefarmer
11-16-11, 06:40 PM
I told you before and I'll tell you again on this forum....................banking has nothing at all to do with Social Security and your right to participate in Social Security.
The banks will go down and the imposition and liability found within the Social Security Act will still remain.

I disagree with your first statement jesse james, even though I think you are probably right about the SS Act remaining after Banks go insolvent, unless some well-hidden legislative clauses are revealed or fabricated when that happens.

The reason that I disagree that banking has nothing to do with SS is because it looks to me like the "voluntary" SS program was the cheese in the mousetrap of private central banking.
There is always free bait in a mousetrap.

This is also why we look at title 12 USC 411 here at StSC. Notice that it says "Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank."

Now that's puzzling; how did these FRNs ever get into the hands of people, who use them like money, if they are for no other purpose than making advances to Fed banks?

At what point do people contract to become Fed banks?
And what exactly is that signature endorsing on the back of a check? Seems superfluous, since the front is already made out to that name. And if the signature is supposed to be an acknowledgement of receipt of cash, then why is it not on the front of the check?
What exactly happens contractually on the back of the check or on the bank signature card for that matter?
I have never been able to get an answer to this question from any Master of Business Administration, banker, or attorney, even though I personally know some of them.

But it gets worse.
There's that giant stinking elephant hidden in plain sight, that nobody wants to see: according to popular wisdom promulgated through compulsory school curriculae, and regurgitated by so many bureaucrats, US agencies, citizens, people, and so-called "lawyers", there's a direct capitation in the land of the US of A, or whatever anyone wants to call it, which the so-called IRS is in the business of collecting. At the same time though this US of A declares to be governed by a Constitution (according to compulsory school curriculae), from which it supposedly derives its governing consent from the People who inhabit this US of A, which prohibits direct capitations.

Now isn't that something?
How is this possible? This is not a rhetorical question; I really want to know.

The 16th Amendment cannot be the cause, because an Amendment must not be in direct contradiction to the main body of the Constitution, and furthermore US courts have repeatedly declared that it "confers no new powers of taxation".
HENDRICKSON has a pretty good collection of these cases here (http://www.losthorizons.com/Intro.pdf).

I do not dispute the veracity of most of HENDRICKSON's case research, I only disagree with his conclusions, especially after he has demonstrated his spectacular failure.
Like a martyr, he has inadvertently revealed the trap which was evidently built into the current Central Banking System from its inception at the "New Deal", of which the SS program was the bait.

This is why we examine the nature of "income" and Lawful money here at StSC.
I also suspect that this is why the IRS in the IRC so studiously avoids giving a true definition of income, and instead merely pretends to define the term, while giving out no information at all about the nature of that income.

There have been enough martyrs who have fought and lost to the IRS and its shadowy masters, that we can connect many dots at this late point in time. There have been many wrong theories on the nature of the "US income tax" and many brave martyrs have revealed them, at great cost to themselves.
After all false leads have been eliminated, the truth, by God's grace, will shine forth.

Thank you for starting this thread jesse james, and for all your contributions and engagement.

motla68
11-16-11, 11:41 PM
careful Shikamaru, he gets a little testy when shown to be a liar.

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/4556/governmentbondslarge.jpg

".. if we can persuade people all through the country, when their salary checks come in, to deposit them in new accounts, which will be held in trust and kept in one of the new forms I have mentioned, we shall have made progress."

The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin Delano Roosevelt - 1933, The Year of Crisis.

EE Savings Bond
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/ebonds/res_e_bonds.htm

<--
" you can use toward financing education, supplemental retirement income, birthday and graduation gifts, and other special events. "

jesse james
11-17-11, 12:00 AM
Ok .....seriously?
You cannot go into reading law beleiving a conspiracy exists!
This is exactly what hendrickson did to mold his theory around the law turning it into baited mumbo jumbo!
All this says:

"Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (A group of bankers, IMF) for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks (every country, except for Iran and Libya, has a reserve central bank)through the Federal reserve agents (more guys who understand banking, google reserve agents) as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized (Stop right here. Beyond this point the subject changes to what the notes are to be used for and by who). The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank."
The reserve system is a big comglamerate of bankers that Congress allowed to replace the US Treasury money issueing system (checks and balances). This board of governors under discretion (checks and balances) authorizes dollars to go to central banks through reserve agents (more checks and balances) to be distributed to member banks and credit unions and such for you for paying debt, taxes, customs and so forth.
Heck they have to issue more fiat as every week millions of Americans were getting paid (trading their labor for a service) with a check that never before did money exist until they "drawn" against the paycheck.
This is as simple as reading "see spot run" for Christs sake!

And you guys think theres a conspiracy?
Werent you listening before when I said between 1913 ( the year the reserve act was enacted) and 1935 ramping up to 1940 that most Americans didnt pay any income tax and earlier than 1913. They didnt pay income taxes because they didnt volunteer themselves into the system until they applied for a ssn.
Check the IRS website....they will tell you ten of millions of Americans didnt pay any income taxes prior 1940 to the conception of this country.
So you have roughly between 1913 and 1935 ramping up to 1940 where a majority of Americans didnt pay any income taxes.
So history is saying you have a big obstacle (1913 to 1940) to overcome in order for this conspiracy theory to hold any creditability!

shikamaru
11-17-11, 12:44 AM
Ok .....seriously?
You cannot go into reading law beleiving a conspiracy exists!
This is exactly what hendrickson did to mold his theory around the law turning it into baited mumbo jumbo!
All this says:

The reserve system is a big comglamerate of bankers that Congress allowed to replace the US Treasury money issueing system (checks and balances). This board of governors under discretion (checks and balances) authorizes dollars to go to central banks through reserve agents (more checks and balances) to be distributed to member banks and credit unions and such for you for paying debt, taxes, customs and so for.

And you guys think theres a conspiracy?
Werent you listening before when I said between 1913 and 1935 ramping up to 1940 that most Americans didnt pay any income tax. They didnt pay income taxes because they didnt volunteer themselves into the system until they applied for a ssn.
Check the IRS website....they will tell you ten of millions of Americans didnt pay any income taxes.
So you have roughly between 1913 and 1935 ramping up to 1`940 where a majority of Americans didnt pay any income taxes.
So history is saying you have a big obstacle (1913 to 1940) to overcome in order for this conspiracy theory to hold any creditability!

By what warrant did the U.S. government have to seize the gold of its citizens?

jesse james
11-17-11, 02:02 AM
By what warrant did the U.S. government have to seize the gold of its citizens?
Read the act!
Who are subjects that I've been posting having very little ptoections of the Bill of Rights?
The US government is subject to the People!
Who is subject to the US government by an amendment?

Do you understand why states have governors and the federal government has a president, vice president, treasurer and so on.
Know anything about corporations?
Do corporations have presidents, vice presidents and treasurers or do corporations have governors?

Hmmmm........any light bulbs suddenly turning on for you?
Its been out in the open this whole time.

shikamaru
11-17-11, 02:17 AM
Read the act!

What act are you speaking of?
That does not answer the question of by what warrant does the US government seize the gold of its citizens?



Who are subjects that I've been posting having very little ptoections of the Bill of Rights?
The US government is subject to the People!
Who is subject to the US government by an amendment?

That's not how they behave, number 1.
Number 2, you are not one of the People (their opinion).
The Constitutions, all of them, have been ruses to get people to coop into their own subjugation.



Do you understand why states have governors and the federal government has a president, vice president, treasurer and so on.
Know anything about corporations?
Do corporations have presidents, vice presidents and treasurers or do corporations have governors?

Hmmmm........any light bulbs suddenly turning on for you?
Its been out in the open this whole time.

Commonwealth (republic) is still a corporation. They are all corporations.

jesse james
11-17-11, 04:08 AM
What act are you speaking of?
That does not answer the question of by what warrant does the US government seize the gold of its citizens?



That's not how they behave, number 1.
Number 2, you are not one of the People (their opinion).
The Constitutions, all of them, have been ruses to get people to coop into their own subjugation.



Commonwealth (republic) is still a corporation. They are all corporations.
I'm speaking of the gold confiscation act.............I beleive it was an act? If not, the president can only dictate to its subjects, not the People, unless it was a presidential executive order. Come to think of it I think it was an executive order. Here it is in part.


Section 1. For the purpose of this regulation, the term “hoarding” means the withdrawal and withholding of gold coin, gold bullion or gold certificates from the recognized and customary channels of trade. The term “person” means any individuals, partnership, association or corporation.

Section 2. All persons are hereby required to deliver on or before May 1, 1933, to a Federal reserve bank or a branch or agency thereof or to any member bank of the Federal Reserve System all gold coin, gold bullion and gold certificates now owned by them or coming into their ownership on or before April 28, 1933, except the following:
(a) Such amount of gold as may be required for legitimate and customary use in industry, profession or art within a reasonable time, including gold prior to refining and stocks of gold in reasonable amounts for the usual trade requirements of owners mining and refining such gold.
(b) Gold coin and gold certificates in an amount not exceeding in the aggregate $100.00 belonging to any one person; and gold coins having a recognized special value
Correct, you are not one of the People. Its not their opinion or anybodies opinion you are listed as a US citizen and acting like subjected US citizen by asking them for permission to do something.....drivers license, marraige license!
After all it takes your signiture does it not? So it therefore is not an opinion at all.
Have you ever seen the government dictate to the People or to Us citizens?
Commonwealth republic.................yeah its a corporation....you've made my point!

shikamaru
11-17-11, 12:41 PM
I'm speaking of the gold confiscation act.............I beleive it was an act? If not, the president can only dictate to its subjects, not the People, unless it was a presidential executive order. Come to think of it I think it was an executive order.

Trading with the Enemies Act of 1917 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trading_with_the_Enemy_Act_1917)
Emergency Banking Relief Act of 1933 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Banking_Relief_Act)
Gold Reserve Act of 1934 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Reserve_Act)

Executive Order 6102 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102)
Invalidation and reissue of aforementioned executive order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102#Invalidation_and_reissue)
Campbell v. Chase National Bank of New York (1933) (http://174.123.24.242/leagle/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=19331615FSupp156_1125.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985)
Executive Order 6102 (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102)
Executive Order 6111 (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6111)
Executive Order 6260 (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6260)
Executive Order 6261 (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6261)

Default of the Fourth Liberty Bond (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_bond#The_Default_of_the_Fourth_Liberty_Bon d)

Exchange Stabilization Fund (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange_Stabilization_Fund)



Its not their opinion or anybodies opinion you are listed as a US citizen and acting like subjected US citizen by asking them for permission to do something.....drivers license, marraige license!

This is true. Licenses are not contracts though. Licenses are servitudes.



After all it takes your signiture does it not?

Signature and name

jesse james
11-17-11, 02:29 PM
Trading with the Enemies Act of 1917 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trading_with_the_Enemy_Act_1917)
Emergency Banking Relief Act of 1933 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Banking_Relief_Act)
Gold Reserve Act of 1934 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Reserve_Act)

Executive Order 6102 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102)
Invalidation and reissue of aforementioned executive order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102#Invalidation_and_reissue)
Campbell v. Chase National Bank of New York (1933) (http://174.123.24.242/leagle/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=19331615FSupp156_1125.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985)
Executive Order 6102 (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102)
Executive Order 6111 (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6111)
Executive Order 6260 (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6260)
Executive Order 6261 (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6261)

Default of the Fourth Liberty Bond (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_bond#The_Default_of_the_Fourth_Liberty_Bon d)

Exchange Stabilization Fund (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange_Stabilization_Fund)



This is true. Licenses are not contracts though. Licenses are servitudes.



Signature and name
Did you know that all Congressional Acts are territorial in nature?
This is why you see in the Social Security Act redefined "state" to include DC (which is not a state) Puerto Rico, Quam, Virgin island and such other treeitories and insulars included in the term "state".
So "the state of Iowa" is no different than Puerto Rico or Dc as far as the Act is concerned.
"Iowa" is one of the 50 states of the union belonging to (what I refer as the confederation of union states) "of America" while the "the state of Iowa" is the federal side belonging to the "United States" (notice the "of America" missing) that the District of Columbia and territories are equals. Research the Buck Act for more on this subject.

The Us Constitution restricts the federal government to go into union state territory except for dock yards, millitary fortifications, arsenals and such. Well since the 14th amendment now established a federal citizen they needed some how to control these new federal 2nd class citizens in the boundaries of the union states, so the Buck Act came about.
Yes an act was enacted called the Buck Act that used the exact boundries of Union States for federal states. The federal state for "Iowa" is called "the state of Iowa".
Look at your drivers license and tell me you dont see "the state of"!

shikamaru
11-17-11, 03:07 PM
Did you know that all Congressional Acts are territorial in nature?
This is why you see in the Social Security Act redefined "state" to include DC (which is not a state) Puerto Rico, Quam, Virgin island and such other treeitories and insulars included in the term "state".
So "the state of Iowa" is no different than Puerto Rico or Dc as far as the Act is concerned.
"Iowa" is one of the 50 states of the union belonging to (what I refer as the confederation of union states) "of America" while the "the state of Iowa" is the federal side belonging to the "United States" (notice the "of America" missing) that the District of Columbia and territories are equals. Research the Buck Act for more on this subject.

Well aware of all this.



The Us Constitution restricts the federal government to go into union state territory except for dock yards, millitary fortifications, arsenals and such. Well since the 14th amendment now established a federal citizen they needed some how to control these new federal 2nd class citizens in the boundaries of the union states, so the Buck Act came about.
Yes an act was enacted called the Buck Act that used the exact boundries of Union States for federal states. The federal state for "Iowa" is called "the state of Iowa".

Well aware of this as well.



Look at your drivers license and tell me you dont see "the state of"!

The State (belonging to) <such and such>.

jesse james
11-17-11, 03:43 PM
One of the hardest things for CtCer's to understand is the term "state"........still is for most of them!
I explained the Social Security Act to them a few times in the past and they said I didnt know what I was talking about when it came to the redefined term "state".
Kept saying "stand tall warriors" and "Pete is right and has them on the run".
Unbeleivable!
Yet it was right there in black and white english that a child of the third grade level can easily comprehend and still they refuse to beleive what the redefined term was telling them.
Pete is just an elegant writer, nothing more........................cracked nothing!
Caused a lot of people to get outlandish fines and imprisonment for his writing skills.

stoneFree
11-17-11, 05:39 PM
Scroll up jesse, you're not at a CtC forum. Check this, here's a scan of the MISS YOU letter the IRS sent Freeman after he walked off the federal tax plantation:

http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/4525/missyous.png
http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/7798/backside.png

Of course he didn't respond, and the IRS did nothing.

BTW, I see constitutional dollars (http://www.apmex.com/Category/1255/Silver_Dollars_By_The_Bag_Morgan__Peace.aspx) are on sale today, thanks to the banking cartel (operating through JPMorganChase). Stock up!

Treefarmer
11-18-11, 01:42 AM
Trading with the Enemies Act of 1917 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trading_with_the_Enemy_Act_1917)
Emergency Banking Relief Act of 1933 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Banking_Relief_Act)
Gold Reserve Act of 1934 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Reserve_Act)

Executive Order 6102 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102)
Invalidation and reissue of aforementioned executive order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102#Invalidation_and_reissue)
Campbell v. Chase National Bank of New York (1933) (http://174.123.24.242/leagle/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=19331615FSupp156_1125.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985)
Executive Order 6102 (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102)
Executive Order 6111 (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6111)
Executive Order 6260 (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6260)
Executive Order 6261 (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6261)

Default of the Fourth Liberty Bond (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_bond#The_Default_of_the_Fourth_Liberty_Bon d)

Exchange Stabilization Fund (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange_Stabilization_Fund)



This is true. Licenses are not contracts though. Licenses are servitudes.



Signature and name

Thank you shikamaru; that's excellent info to have here in this thread.
You rock!

Treefarmer
11-18-11, 01:56 AM
Ok .....seriously?
You cannot go into reading law beleiving a conspiracy exists!
This is exactly what hendrickson did to mold his theory around the law turning it into baited mumbo jumbo!
All this says:

The reserve system is a big comglamerate of bankers that Congress allowed to replace the US Treasury money issueing system (checks and balances). This board of governors under discretion (checks and balances) authorizes dollars to go to central banks through reserve agents (more checks and balances) to be distributed to member banks and credit unions and such for you for paying debt, taxes, customs and so forth.
Heck they have to issue more fiat as every week millions of Americans were getting paid (trading their labor for a service) with a check that never before did money exist until they "drawn" against the paycheck.
This is as simple as reading "see spot run" for Christs sake!

And you guys think theres a conspiracy?
Werent you listening before when I said between 1913 ( the year the reserve act was enacted) and 1935 ramping up to 1940 that most Americans didnt pay any income tax and earlier than 1913. They didnt pay income taxes because they didnt volunteer themselves into the system until they applied for a ssn.
Check the IRS website....they will tell you ten of millions of Americans didnt pay any income taxes prior 1940 to the conception of this country.
So you have roughly between 1913 and 1935 ramping up to 1940 where a majority of Americans didnt pay any income taxes.
So history is saying you have a big obstacle (1913 to 1940) to overcome in order for this conspiracy theory to hold any creditability!

I'm disappointed in you jesse james. I had hoped you would honestly attempt to answer my questions.
Ignoring a part of 12 USC 411 just because it doesn't fit your story just doesn't cut it.

Do you know Pete HENDRICKSON so well that you can be sure he was looking for a conspiracy when he researched the IRC?
What makes you think that anybody here would read the IRC because they are looking for a conspiracy?

I have some more questions for you:

What do you mean by "checks and balances"?

Who or what authorized Congress "to replace the US Treasury money issueing (sic) system" with the Federal Reserve System?

Don't let me down jesse james; this thread was moving along nicely until you got dodgy.

Treefarmer
11-18-11, 02:03 AM
Did you know that all Congressional Acts are territorial in nature?
This is why you see in the Social Security Act redefined "state" to include DC (which is not a state) Puerto Rico, Quam, Virgin island and such other treeitories and insulars included in the term "state".
So "the state of Iowa" is no different than Puerto Rico or Dc as far as the Act is concerned.
"Iowa" is one of the 50 states of the union belonging to (what I refer as the confederation of union states) "of America" while the "the state of Iowa" is the federal side belonging to the "United States" (notice the "of America" missing) that the District of Columbia and territories are equals. Research the Buck Act for more on this subject.

The Us Constitution restricts the federal government to go into union state territory except for dock yards, millitary fortifications, arsenals and such. Well since the 14th amendment now established a federal citizen they needed some how to control these new federal 2nd class citizens in the boundaries of the union states, so the Buck Act came about.

Really? OMG, why didn't they teach us this in school?

Yes an act was enacted called the Buck Act that used the exact boundries of Union States for federal states. The federal state for "Iowa" is called "the state of Iowa".
Look at your drivers license and tell me you dont see "the state of"!

Thank you jesse james for pointing out the conspiracy for me, or I would have had to do it.
You are making this easy on me:)

jesse james
11-18-11, 03:10 AM
This is all public knowledge you know!
You are suppose to know and understand the law.
The only conspiracy I say there is is one that halted "civics class" from further being taught in public schools and replacing it with government class.

jesse james
11-18-11, 03:13 AM
I'm disappointed in you jesse james. I had hoped you would honestly attempt to answer my questions.
Ignoring a part of 12 USC 411 just because it doesn't fit your story just doesn't cut it.

Do you know Pete HENDRICKSON so well that you can be sure he was looking for a conspiracy when he researched the IRC?
What makes you think that anybody here would read the IRC because they are looking for a conspiracy?

I have some more questions for you:

What do you mean by "checks and balances"?

Who or what authorized Congress "to replace the US Treasury money issueing (sic) system" with the Federal Reserve System?

Don't let me down jesse james; this thread was moving along nicely until you got dodgy.
I did answer your questions......even commented on 411. 411 has nothing at all to do with you being a bank.
Not my problem if you dont like my answers.
And what makes you think I know every answer to your tricky loaded questions....hmmm?
Well why dont you start researching the events surrounding and leading up to the enactment to replace the treasury notes.

stoneFree
11-18-11, 04:38 AM
I'm guessing jesse's title within the cabal might be ... Perception Minister. But his new "sovrun" persona is so lame it's comical. More like belligerent sovrun. Anyway, today's article is from Ann Barnhardt:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/entire-system-has-been-utterly-destroyed-mf-global-collapse-presenting-first-mf-global-casualty

Well done Ann.

jesse james
11-18-11, 12:38 PM
I'm guessing jesse's title within the cabal might be ... Perception Minister. But his new "sovrun" persona is so lame it's comical. More like belligerent sovrun. Anyway, today's article is from Ann Barnhardt:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/entire-system-has-been-utterly-destroyed-mf-global-collapse-presenting-first-mf-global-casualty

Well done Ann.
Isnt that more like your title?
You do a very good job of not being able to provide any evidence what so ever that 12 usc 411 says anything to the nature a tax being imposed for the mere use of fiat.
I see you still havent provided any evidence over at losthorizons. They are still waiting!

That "delusion" thingy over at that other forum really pissed you off didnt it?
Hahahahaha....

Belligerent huh!
Well this 411 banker thing has no chance of standing in any court room with nothing to back it up. All you have is an improvable theory based on opinionated interpretation. Yeah that always works.......ask Hendrickson and Schiff.
Your only success is attributed to you being in control of reporting to the SSA. Same goes for Motla68....................this 411 has nothing to do with it. But yet you are over at LH bragging how you file the CtC way. And when asked by a fellow Ctcer to procure your proof.....you go silent......imagine that!
You go silent because you havent filed since 2008 which isnt being successful with the 4852. You are a liar.
Then you come over to this site and waffle over to the 411 theory.
Merrill, like me, looks at the hendrickson theory as total failure and for good reason. But there you are waffling back and forth between Merrill and Hendrickson parading yourself as some expert guru whos only been on the scene since 08 when you supposedly woke up to this banking cartel thingy.
Been in this since 1995 and I can say this........ you are nothing but a fool!
You dont realize it but everytime I say something you always have a better story. The story about your employees is a perfect example. All lies!
If I caught a fish 12 inches long you caught one 13. Your demeanor is of a pathetic 8 year old puffing his chest out to get attention.
Its pathetic!

stoneFree
11-18-11, 02:37 PM
Aww, you're an angry elf. Come here, let me give you a hug:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjmjtOnDyYs

jesse james
11-18-11, 04:03 PM
Aww, you're an angry elf. Come here, let me give you a hug:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjmjtOnDyYs

Naaa....not angry at all, just letting everyone know just what type of person you are. But then again you do such a great job of that yourself.
Just look at the lengths you go through to get in a jab....................really youtube? How immature!

I'm still waiting for that 411 evidence. Not holding my breath though.
I know it doesnt exist!

Hey I noticed something. You arent making light of how I went about terminating the W4 by standing on my protections found in the Constitution. I figure you're such a clever little sport at throwing rocks while hiding in the bushes you'd throw rocks at what I did. You know........try and discredit me by discrediting my reasoning and logic.
Maybe I should tell everyone how I did it. Its bullet proof and the US Constitution being the law of the land backs it up along with administrative code.
Not like the 411 theory where you cannot procure any statute to back you in a court setting if that should ever happen.
But in doing so it shows CtC is wrong, which you follow and promote, along with the 411 theory. You'll be in damage control mode and probably have to join under a different name.
I mean you have Motla68 over in a another thread dabbling with other IRS forms................guess the 411 theory doesnt work if hes still fighting the system he claims he is free of.

David Merrill
11-18-11, 04:51 PM
Isnt that more like your title?
You do a very good job of not being able to provide any evidence what so ever that 12 usc 411 says anything to the nature a tax being imposed for the mere use of fiat.
I see you still havent provided any evidence over at losthorizons. They are still waiting!

That "delusion" thingy over at that other forum really pissed you off didnt it?
Hahahahaha....

Belligerent huh!
Well this 411 banker thing has no chance of standing in any court room with nothing to back it up. All you have is an improvable theory based on opinionated interpretation. Yeah that always works.......ask Hendrickson and Schiff.
Your only success is attributed to you being in control of reporting to the SSA. Same goes for Motla68....................this 411 has nothing to do with it. But yet you are over at LH bragging how you file the CtC way. And when asked by a fellow Ctcer to procure your proof.....you go silent......imagine that!
You go silent because you havent filed since 2008 which isnt being successful with the 4852. You are a liar.
Then you come over to this site and waffle over to the 411 theory.
Merrill, like me, looks at the hendrickson theory as total failure and for good reason. But there you are waffling back and forth between Merrill and Hendrickson parading yourself as some expert guru whos only been on the scene since 08 when you supposedly woke up to this banking cartel thingy.
Been in this since 1995 and I can say this........ you are nothing but a fool!
You dont realize it but everytime I say something you always have a better story. The story about your employees is a perfect example. All lies!
If I caught a fish 12 inches long you caught one 13. Your demeanor is of a pathetic 8 year old puffing his chest out to get attention.
Its pathetic!


I don't know it is mentioned in CtC. I got it from a suitor trying to fight with Pete's method and he actually paid for Pete to come stay as a houseguest during the court process.

Pete's method depends on your right to be heard. That is why so many Refunds come from his method. The presumption is that since you filed under penalty of perjury, you told the truth. The reason I think it is a failure is once the IRS hears from the employer report, they choose to hear the employer report and demand either you pay up plus $5K or escalate this to criminal failure to file. Pete suggests some arguments from Title 26 (I hear; I have the book but have not Cracked Cracking the Code (http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/921/finestructurekey.jpg)). Try teaching the judge and prosecutor about tax law! Tell us how that went over?

stoneFree
11-18-11, 08:46 PM
I agree, my chances of teaching a judge & prosecutor anything about tax law are next to zero. Better to stay with your natural rights and have no reason to enter their court to be administrated against.

Nice to see you agreeing with David Merrill, jesse. Can't say our sessions haven't shown progress, eh? Yes I did file what you might call a "ctc return" for TY08 and then received a full refund of everything paid in - the whole shebang. By good fortune I also learned of Planet Merrill and began redeeming lawful money. Part of the reason I always have a better story is I back up my success with documentation. I make plenty of dollars, but pay no tribute to the banking cartel.

Hey jesse, care to define a dollar?

Was George H. Scherf Jr the 41st US President? (http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20070405.htm)

jesse james
11-18-11, 11:18 PM
I agree, my chances of teaching a judge & prosecutor anything about tax law are next to zero. Better to stay with your natural rights and have no reason to enter their court to be administrated against.

Nice to see you agreeing with David Merrill, jesse. Can't say our sessions haven't shown progress, eh? Yes I did file what you might call a "ctc return" for TY08 and then received a full refund of everything paid in - the whole shebang. By good fortune I also learned of Planet Merrill and began redeeming lawful money. Part of the reason I always have a better story is I back up my success with documentation. I make plenty of dollars, but pay no tribute to the banking cartel.

Hey jesse, care to define a dollar?

Was George H. Scherf Jr the 41st US President? (http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20070405.htm)
What makes you think I agree with Merrill?
And you being a subject "US citizen" believe you can use these natural rights as a defense when in a jurisdiction where the magistrates recognize you having only "civil rights" huh?....ask Hendrickson or Schiff what happened to natural rights.
What success can you back up?
You havent yet procured any statutes attesting to fiat causing the imposition of income taxes. On the flip side you cannot procure any law, statute or anything saying redeeming lawful money nullifies the liability of the Income tax.

motla68
11-19-11, 01:10 AM
31 USC 3124
"(a) Stocks and obligations of the United States Government are exempt from taxation by a State or political subdivision of a State. The exemption applies to each form of taxation that would require the obligation, the interest on the obligation, or both, to be considered in computing a tax"

Notice there is a period after the word "State" and before the word "The", therefore not a sentence continuation, it is a new sentence and a new though in parallel to.

28 USC 3002
(14) “State” means any of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, or any territory or possession of the United States.

Where is the Seat of the Federal Government, inside the 10 mile square of what?

jesse james
11-19-11, 04:29 PM
31 USC 3124
"(a) Stocks and obligations of the United States Government are exempt from taxation by a State or political subdivision of a State. The exemption applies to each form of taxation that would require the obligation, the interest on the obligation, or both, to be considered in computing a tax"

Notice there is a period after the word "State" and before the word "The", therefore not a sentence continuation, it is a new sentence and a new though in parallel to.

28 USC 3002
(14) “State” means any of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, or any territory or possession of the United States.

Where is the Seat of the Federal Government, inside the 10 mile square of what?
Why are you listing 3124?
It only applies to the state or political subdivisions of a state..................not you!
What makes you think you are an obligation of the United States?

stoneFree
11-19-11, 05:21 PM
Top 'o the morning jesse; how's the weather in Iowa?
And what makes you think I'm a "US Citizen?"

It's curious you should say I've gone silent. I wonder what perception you're trying to manage. I've been very vocal about my victory over the banking cartel & its IRS collection agent for, let's see, almost four years now. I've laid it out (with scans) at FreedomWatch, losthorizons.com, here at STSC, & over at Quatloos.com to name a few. Parenthetically, only Quatloos has censored me. They've placed me on every-post-approved moderation yet haven't approved any in over a month. I consider that validation that I'm speaking too much truth.

motla68
11-19-11, 06:06 PM
Why are you listing 3124?
It only applies to the state or political subdivisions of a state..................not you!
What makes you think you are an obligation of the United States?

Because you asked about how is lawful money exempt wage from tax. What do you think lawful money is?
Where did I say that it applies to me?

738737

jesse james
11-19-11, 06:15 PM
Top 'o the morning jesse; how's the weather in Iowa?
And what makes you think I'm a "US Citizen?"

It's curious you should say I've gone silent. I wonder what perception you're trying to manage. I've been very vocal about my victory over the banking cartel & its IRS collection agent for, let's see, almost four years now. I've laid it out (with scans) at FreedomWatch, losthorizons.com, here at STSC, & over at Quatloos.com to name a few. Parenthetically, only Quatloos has censored me. They've placed me on every-post-approved moderation yet haven't approved any in over a month. I consider that validation that I'm speaking too much truth.

You arent anything else besides a "US citizen" because you didnt know there was a difference in privileges and Rights between the two to understand how the courts know the difference to render a decision. You havent a chance in hell to defend yourself in court because you havent a clue in understanding where you stand to defend yourself.

In your own eyes you call it validation (hearsay)........ doesnt mean maybe they cant really stomach your lies and arrogence.
You wouldnt have made it three days if I had a forum you were posting in.

jesse james
11-19-11, 06:28 PM
Because you asked about how is lawful money exempt wage from tax. What do you think lawful money is?
Where did I say that it applies to me?

738737
Doesnt matter if you sign the W4 exempt or not you are still under the rules and regulations of Social Security by signing a W4. The employer is still most likely reporting how much you earn to the SSA as 3121(a) "wages". The SSA puts this W3 info in the system. This is the same system the IRS uses to update their records. The irs records will show you earned 3401(a) "wages" as you did 3121(a) "wages" and havent had any deductions which will result in a deficiency letter.
That exempt status is only telling the employer to not withhold but you are still being treated as earning statutory "wages".
See.................what have I been saying about this lawful money theory.
Hey heres something for you to think about.
Remember a while ago that employer who paid his employers on gold coin face value. That by your definition is lawful money (untaxable, its gold right?), but the IRS still convicted the employer.
This is because the employer report "wages" to the IRS. It went into the record system where the IRS found out.

The battle to this is understanding "reporting" and reverse engineering from there back. In the end you will find your self standing in 1935 where reporting all started for the working class, the Social Security Act.
Its not rocket science, but for some of you thick skulled knuckle draggers its quantum mechanics.

cernicolo
11-19-11, 08:24 PM
this goes back to maxim of law i think, liability lies with he who made a thing needful. you made demand, coerced to accept an alternative, the liability lies with the other party.

jesse james
11-19-11, 10:07 PM
this goes back to maxim of law i think, liability lies with he who made a thing needful. you made demand, coerced to accept an alternative, the liability lies with the other party.
Huh.......?

motla68
11-19-11, 10:49 PM
Doesnt matter if you sign the W4 exempt or not you are still under the rules and regulations of Social Security by signing a W4. The employer is still most likely reporting how much you earn to the SSA as 3121(a) "wages". The SSA puts this W3 info in the system. This is the same system the IRS uses to update their records. The irs records will show you earned 3401(a) "wages" as you did 3121(a) "wages" and havent had any deductions which will result in a deficiency letter.
That exempt status is only telling the employer to not withhold but you are still being treated as earning statutory "wages".
See.................what have I been saying about this lawful money theory.
Hey heres something for you to think about.
Remember a while ago that employer who paid his employers on gold coin face value. That by your definition is lawful money (untaxable, its gold right?), but the IRS still convicted the employer.
This is because the employer report "wages" to the IRS. It went into the record system where the IRS found out.

The battle to this is understanding "reporting" and reverse engineering from there back. In the end you will find your self standing in 1935 where reporting all started for the working class, the Social Security Act.
Its not rocket science, but for some of you thick skulled knuckle draggers its quantum mechanics.

The attachments were not from me, it is from someone i showed how to do it.
For me they do not contact me anymore for the most part any time I send something requesting information they send back an acknowledgement that the information request was received and say wait 45 days for a response, but then they never respond. It could be because of some other things I have done in the past that it has a " do not mess with this guy " notice on the account or something.
The really odd thing though is that the state department of revenue is still contacting me, they have ignored most of my communications lately, first they garnished wages and I beat them at that through private administrative procedure and got back the funds they took, then they tried to levy a bank account, same deal there, they took me to court, beat them there too because I had showed the administrative judge what i had done with the other things and he dismissed the case for lack of a valid claim, but these ignoramuses still send me a bill, reminder notices to file e.t.c.

Treefarmer
11-20-11, 12:04 AM
I did answer your questions......even commented on 411. 411 has nothing at all to do with you being a bank.
Not my problem if you dont like my answers.
And what makes you think I know every answer to your tricky loaded questions....hmmm?
Well why dont you start researching the events surrounding and leading up to the enactment to replace the treasury notes.

No loaded questions; only straight forward, plain and simple questions which I thought you may be able to answer, considering how sure you seem to be of your opinions on how the "income tax" system works.

Research is why we are here assembled in this forum.
Why are you here?

fishnet
11-20-11, 12:32 AM
Research is why we are here assembled in this forum.
Why are you here?

I am considering jesse james a disinformation agent of the controlled opposition front. My mind is not made up as of yet.

jesse james
11-20-11, 01:25 AM
I am considering jesse james a disinformation agent of the controlled opposition front. My mind is not made up as of yet.
Then you have no reasoning if you think I'm an agent.
I'm posing questions your research hasnt an answer to other than your research is just interpretive opinion, that wont, and never has held up in court. The same tuff questions I asked myself with my research.
I've done my research (since 1995) and so far every lawyer who has looked at it basically states............."impressive......! Wouldnt want to be on the opposing councel."
This is what you have to do.............ask the hard questions and be honest about it. Put it under a microscope which some fools here thinks is a pathetic thing to do.

I'm here because a forum member here was yapping his mouth about CtC on a different forum which I challenged him to. He failed miserably, as expected from a failed theory. He waffled back and forth between merrill and hendrickson theories. I dont think he fully knows whats going on. I hope i enlightened him a bit to at least be prepared to defend himself when the time comes. But his ego thinks I'm some boogy man from quatloos. Its obvious he doesnt like his pride getting kicked around so he took it out in a childish way. Thats fine as I hope he understands ego cannot get in his way when the hammer falls to defend himself in court.
They will walk all over him if hes not prepared.

stoneFree
11-20-11, 03:59 AM
Plus one for you, fishnet! A good disinfo agent will often mix-in a good amount of truth, just as our bank-auditor-cpa-turned-tax-attorney does here. Does it matter to the SSA/IRS how the employee signs the W4? Probably not. Employees Forms W4 sat in a cabinet never seen by anyone but company owner & the bookkeeper. Company did send employee earning amounts to the SSA which likely DID create the presumption of statutory wages. Company made the decision to withhold, to create presumption, to help enslave them. Based on what? The opinions of CPA/attorneys like jesse james.

But, the worker still has the right to be heard. Were the reported earnings really "wages?" Did the worker endorse private credit or redeem lawful money?

And yes, I recall the case of the employer who paid employees in gold. What you neglected to mention: the gold was purchased with unredeemed debt notes of the Federal Reserve. Therefore, US Treasury carried first lien. Company owner didn't have highest title to the gold.

jesse james
11-20-11, 05:13 AM
Plus one for you, fishnet! A good disinfo agent will often mix-in a good amount of truth, just as our bank-auditor-cpa-turned-tax-attorney does here. Does it matter to the SSA/IRS how the employee signs the W4? Probably not. Employees Forms W4 sat in a cabinet never seen by anyone but company owner & the bookkeeper. Company did send employee earning amounts to the SSA which likely DID create the presumption of statutory wages. Company made the decision to withhold, to create presumption, to help enslave them. Based on what? The opinions of CPA/attorneys like jesse james.

But, the worker still has the right to be heard. Were the reported earnings really "wages?" Did the worker endorse private credit or redeem lawful money?

And yes, I recall the case of the employer who paid employees in gold. What you neglected to mention: the gold was purchased with unredeemed debt notes of the Federal Reserve. Therefore, US Treasury carried first lien. Company owner didn't have highest title to the gold.

Hahahahaha..............now that is laughable! First lein?.......wheres that mentioned in 411? Or is this a perfect example of one of your fish stories where you always have a better story.

What dont you get about presumption? Oh thats right.............presumption is a hendrickson CtC thingy!
If the employer is reporting "wages" then by logic there is no presumption about it. The earnings are bonified "wages" that the worker signed to earn.
The ctc thesis is about being presumed a "government employee"............another invention of Pete Hendrickson. Read the law and maybe a few court cases Libra!
The courts repeatedly say that 3401(c) "employee" is expansive to include the private sector.
Title 26 chapter 24 section 3401(a) didnt include Social Security 3121(a) "wages" until the 1939 code. And if you read chapter 21 3121(a) "wages" it, clear as the sky is blue, excludes a majority of government workers from participating in Social Security. Do you understand what that means?
What it means is that Hendrickson is a fool and cant comprehend a darn thing.
To sum up 3121(a) "wages" only short term government workers are allowed to participate in Social Security such as enlisted soldiers. Career government workers are not permitted to participate. They have their own seperate government retirement program.
You damn well know congress and the likes do not participate in Social Security. How many emails have you read that if Congress was to have the same benefits as the common people through Social Security they would change SS over night?
Yeah we all seen the emails so why cant you put 2 and 2 together to come up with 4 instead of 22?
So you tell us here in this forum why Hendrickson keeps insisting that 3401(c) "employee" is to mean only "government employees" when you see Social Security 3121(a) "wages" (that most career government employees are not permitted to participate) in amongst the definition of 3401(a) "wages" that is supposedly only earned by government employees.
Doesnt make a whole lot of sense does it...............no logic there is there?
The very statutes hendrickson relies on in his book says Hendrickson is a damn fool who cannot read nor comprehend correctly.
Any wonder the fool is in the grey bar hotel?

Without any proof I'm who you say I am doesn't make you look as cool as you think you are libra.
You are failing miserable here. Getting kicked around pretty good arent you!

David Merrill
11-20-11, 09:35 AM
The First Lien by the Treasury is mentioned on the Notice of Tax Lien.

stoneFree
11-20-11, 03:26 PM
Calm down Jay, have you forgotten I'm immune to your venom. Yes, "employee" is expansive to include the private sector. This is a scam. Of course its operators would expand it to include as many as possible. The trust was opened up in 193X so anyone could endorse Fed Reserve credit and become subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

I know you must be feeling down and discouraged at not gaining any traction here. Your attempts to sow discord & division haven't worked. And you haven't steered anyone away from our lawful money remedy found at 12 USC 411.

jesse james
11-20-11, 03:45 PM
The First Lien by the Treasury is mentioned on the Notice of Tax Lien.
Mr. Merrill
You say tax lien by the Treasury........................shouldnt the first lien be from the federal reserve board?
Trying to follow this redeeming money idea, but the first tax lien from the Treasury isnt making much logic.

jesse james
11-20-11, 04:08 PM
Calm down Jay, have you forgotten I'm immune to your venom. Yes, "employee" is expansive to include the private sector. This is a scam. Of course its operators would expand it to include as many as possible. The trust was opened up in 193X so anyone could endorse Fed Reserve credit and become subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

I know you must be feeling down and discouraged at not gaining any traction here. Your attempts to sow discord & division haven't worked. And you haven't steered anyone away from our lawful money remedy found at 12 USC 411.
See you are confused.................first you say "yes" it does expand to encompass the private sector. Then in the very next sentence you call it a scam!
How can it be a scam when clearly the black letter law says career government employees cannot participate in Social Security.

And since you allow your ego to do your talking show the statute or any wording in the Reserve Act remotely suggesting endorsing fiat reserve note subjects the entity endorsing the fiat to the jurisdiction thereof!
Jurisdiction of what!!!!!!!!!?
Banks are not political bodies consisting of boundaries and land.
I want to see this libra.
First of all Libra "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" comes directly from the 14th amendment and its the only Constitutional amendment establishing a second class citizen.
You know as I know the reserve act has no wording like this anywhere within the act.
No Congressional Act has ever had "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" wording ever. The Constitution doesnt grant Congress or anyone that kind of authority. The US Constitution is the only document having that kind of authority and it only gets that kind of authority by the People through ratification........not territorial Congressional acts.
Just so you dont twist what I'm saying around. Congress gets its authority from the US Constitution. If you notice its an amendment to the law of the land that has authority....not congress!
So in essence you are saying by endorsing alone brings the entity under the jurisdiction of Congress or the board of reserve bank Govenors................. what is it you are saying?
If so then what you are saying is that since the US dollar is the worlds reserve currency then every country trading in US dollars is subject to the Reseve banks or Congress?

Hahahahahaha.........
Please by all means explain this smelly pile of dung!
I have to ask......did you fall asleep or daydream in government class?

motla68
11-20-11, 04:42 PM
See you are confused.................first you say "yes" it does expand to encompass the private sector. Then in the very next sentence you call it a scam!
How can it be a scam when clearly the black letter law says career government employees cannot participate in Social Security.

And since you allow your ego to do your talking show the statute or any wording in the Reserve Act remotely suggesting endorsing fiat reserve note subjects the entity endorsing the fiat to the jurisdiction thereof!
Jurisdiction of what!!!!!!!!!?
Banks are not political bodies consisting of boundaries and land.
I want to see this libra.
First of all Libra "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" comes directly from the 14th amendment and its the only Constitutional amendment establishing a second class citizen.
You know as I know the reserve act has no wording like this anywhere within the act.
No Congressional Act has ever had "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" wording ever. The Constitution doesnt grant Congress or anyone that kind of authority. The US Constitution is the only document having that kind of authority and it only gets that kind of authority by the People through ratification........not territorial Congressional acts.
Just so you dont twist what I'm saying around. Congress gets its authority from the US Constitution. If you notice its an amendment to the law of the land that has authority....not congress!
So in essence you are saying by endorsing alone brings the entity under the jurisdiction of Congress or the board of reserve bank Govenors................. what is it you are saying?
If so then what you are saying is that since the US dollar is the worlds reserve currency then every country trading in US dollars is subject to the Reseve banks or Congress?

Hahahahahaha.........
Please by all means explain this smelly pile of dung!
I have to ask......did you fall asleep or daydream in government class?

Just to name a couple for your benefit:

"" H.R. 1363, the "Citizenship Reform Act of 1995," exemplifies the various legislative proposals before the committees. The stated purpose of the bill is "to deny automatic citizenship at birth to children born in the United States to parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens." Section 3(a) of the bill amends section 301(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which grants U.S. citizenship "at birth" to all persons "born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Specifically, section 3(a) proposes to define the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to include only children born to U.S. citizens or permanent resident aliens. ""

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

jesse james
11-20-11, 05:14 PM
Just to name a couple for your benefit:

"" H.R. 1363, the "Citizenship Reform Act of 1995," exemplifies the various legislative proposals before the committees. The stated purpose of the bill is "to deny automatic citizenship at birth to children born in the United States to parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens." Section 3(a) of the bill amends section 301(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which grants U.S. citizenship "at birth" to all persons "born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Specifically, section 3(a) proposes to define the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to include only children born to U.S. citizens or permanent resident aliens. ""

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Did you happen to notice that the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is preestablished by the Constitution and not by Congress?
Congress doesnt have that authority to make subjects...............the people do through their Trust called the Constitution.
Congress references the Constitution as the authority.

Anyone here notice the only condition to being a "US citizen"?
Notice in section 1 of the 14th amendment the comma after United States.

You can be born and naturalized all day long, but you have to be subject to the jurisdiction thereof before becoming a US citizen.
Now ask yourself..............why do they ask for your permission all the time.......like signing a W4 agreement or SS5.
Why a W4 before the start of every new job?
Because you have to submit to being a lower class of citizen where congress has jurisdiction to tax and regulate you.

A State citizen is the People above their created government.
A "US citizen" is a subject.


“We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of it’s own...”
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

“...he was not a citizen of the United States, he was a citizen and voter of the State,...” “One may be a citizen of a State an yet not a citizen of the United States”.
McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)

“That there is a citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state,...”
Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)

"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."
Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383

“The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other”.
Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)

“There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such”.
Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900)

“The rights and privileges, and immunities which the fourteenth constitutional amendment and Rev. St. section 1979 [U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1262], for its enforcement, were designated to protect, are such as belonging to citizens of the United States as such, and not as citizens of a state”.
Wadleigh v. Newhall 136 F. 941 (1905)

“...rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship”.
Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)

motla68
11-21-11, 12:01 AM
Did you happen to notice that the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is preestablished by the Constitution and not by Congress?
Congress doesnt have that authority to make subjects...............the people do through their Trust called the Constitution.
Congress references the Constitution as the authority.

Anyone here notice the only condition to being a "US citizen"?
Notice in section 1 of the 14th amendment the comma after United States.

You can be born and naturalized all day long, but you have to be subject to the jurisdiction thereof before becoming a US citizen.
Now ask yourself..............why do they ask for your permission all the time.......like signing a W4 agreement or SS5.
Why a W4 before the start of every new job?
Because you have to submit to being a lower class of citizen where congress has jurisdiction to tax and regulate you.

A State citizen is the People above their created government.
A "US citizen" is a subject.

Predate, man before a citizen, Gen 1:26. Person being an after thought. Who helped in the creation of the person for their benefit?

jesse james
11-21-11, 01:34 AM
Predate, man before a citizen, Gen 1:26. Person being an after thought. Who helped in the creation of the person for their benefit?

Are you retarded or what Motla68?
Have you been drinking?

Why are you bringing the Bible into this?
The Bible has nothing to do with you choosing to be a subject of Congresses to apply for Social Security benefits.

motla68
11-21-11, 01:47 AM
Are you retarded or what Motla68?
Have you been drinking?

Why are you bringing the Bible into this?
The Bible has nothing to do with you choosing to be a subject of Congresses to apply for Social Security benefits.

LOL.. we are just comparing surveys here correct? Did the Declaration of Independence come first or did the Constitution ?

jesse james
11-21-11, 02:36 AM
LOL.. we are just comparing surveys here correct? Did the Declaration of Independence come first or did the Constitution ?
What does this have to do with the price of tea in china?

motla68
11-21-11, 05:21 AM
What does this have to do with the price of tea in china?

Consensus tollit errorem. Consent removes or obviates a mistake.

Disparata non debent jungi. Unequal things ought not to be joined.

Consentientes et agentes pari poenÉ plectentur. Those consenting and those perpetrating are embraced in the same punishment

What does one consent to, what does one recognize? one is not a citizen just for being born.
Just as a bible has been open to so many interpretation so does statutes or authority of constitution depending on what judge you get. The inside of that courthouse has many jurisdictions. One must ask theirselves... what came first to the best of their knowledge, that be the organic law in which one has a choice to accept , consent to, recognize. It has become quite clear that the constitution of your beliefs are not the same as most of ours when it comes to this thread. What works for one does not always work for the other, Those are corporate statutes, unless one does not consent to being a statutory employee one will always be persued and usually loose.
Someone so attached to these things have not the faintest clue that one can practically say I am exempt because I say I am exempt.

David Merrill
11-21-11, 08:37 AM
Fear of Separation. From that arises the Priesthood. Again from the Gospel of Philip the Deacon 1934, which I found by the way in the Mason Library (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Freemason_library.jpg).



http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/9026/teachingonthelaw.jpg


It would seem though, that Jesse James is not biting. The Laws of Nature and Nature's God...

That survey was the property rights of 55 men - the sacred honor behind pledging Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness - the authority of posting everything as your bond. Everything!

jesse james
11-21-11, 01:05 PM
Fear of Separation. From that arises the Priesthood. Again from the Gospel of Philip the Deacon 1934, which I found by the way in the Mason Library (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Freemason_library.jpg).



http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/9026/teachingonthelaw.jpg


It would seem though, that Jesse James is not biting. The Laws of Nature and Nature's God...

That survey was the property rights of 55 men - the sacred honor behind pledging Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness - the authority of posting everything as your bond. Everything!
Yeah Dave, I'm not biting. Natures law doesnt say something is there when its clearly not and God doesnt promote lies.
I do not see 411 saying anything that you are a "bank" or that 411 says you are imposed the income tax liability when another provisions say they are the imposing reason.
Stonefree accuses me of being "delusional" but the medical definition to "delusional" is someone with an absolute belief when evidence proves to the contary.
Well show in the Reserve Act where it specifically states the use of fiat imposes the federal income tax liability when Social Security imposes the tax at 3101 for participating in a welfare program. And to further once you earn 3121(a) "wages" those same wages are lumped into chapter 24 that authorizes deductions and withholding for the Section 1 federal income tax.
Section 1 regulations are specific and only say the tax is imposed on "US citizens", not the use of private credit. The courts have ruled over and over and over that "US citizens" are not the People of the United States of America. They have a lower classification, one of subjection, which is easily determined by the "Civil Rights" and "privileges" they are granted by Congress. Civil Rights eminate from yet another Congressional Act, the Civil Rights ACt of 1866, not the first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
Christ says to not ever take an oath but yet their you are taking an oath you are a "US citizen".

And if you are gonna talk Bible I will only listen when you answer correctly what 666 is. God Himself states you have wisdom if you understand 666. Do you Dave have any wisdom? (clue you in Dave 666 is not a person with a tail holding a pitch fork whacking heads off. Its quite the opposite! But very deadly if you are tempted by this fake.)
I wont even listen to a word you have to say about the Bible if you cant answer what 666 is. There is no point in going there if you dont know.

motla68
11-21-11, 01:35 PM
Fear of Separation. From that arises the Priesthood. Again from the Gospel of Philip the Deacon 1934, which I found by the way in the Mason Library (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Freemason_library.jpg).



http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/9026/teachingonthelaw.jpg


It would seem though, that Jesse James is not biting. The Laws of Nature and Nature's God...

That survey was the property rights of 55 men - the sacred honor behind pledging Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness - the authority of posting everything as your bond. Everything!

In the spirit of your posting here, the attached document might start to make more sense now:

739

motla68
11-21-11, 02:46 PM
And if you are gonna talk Bible I will only listen when you answer correctly what 666 is. God Himself states you have wisdom if you understand 666. Do you Dave have any wisdom? (clue you in Dave 666 is not a person with a tail holding a pitch fork whacking heads off. Its quite the opposite! But very deadly if you are tempted by this fake.)
I wont even listen to a word you have to say about the Bible if you cant answer what 666 is. There is no point in going there if you dont know.

Just like everything else that is open for interpretation as well, so what makes you so sure your correct and not someone else's interpretation of it? To have truth another man would have to agree to it.

Here goes mine basically speaking:

"" as the seal on the foreheads of God's servants is defined in Rev 14:1 as ‘having their Father's name written on their foreheads "" and as the number of the beast, mark of a man (singular) denoting a mark on ones head. Egyptian art has also shown the third eye as being upon the forehead " the all seeing eye ". Also in reference to defining Conscience as the court of ones morals as his constitution between right and wrong. I see it as the Altar Ego, the subconscious mind, because if heaven is in us then hell is within us too. If you do a search and see how many times the word " altart " was used it plays a significant roll in many things and most of the time it was associated with some other name to be called something i.e. altar of wood or altar of sacrifice, hence the phrase state of mind. We all need to look in the mirror, because that is where the answer is found, not in some external source in a literal sense. You are who you say you are.

Exodus 3:14 " And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM " Revelations 22:13 " I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."
John 1:1 " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. "

Again Genesis 1:26 " And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

jesse james
11-21-11, 04:38 PM
666 is the 6th trumpet, the 6th seal, and the 6th vial.
Read each one of those passages and understand that Michael goes to war with satan and his angels and Michael kicks satan and his angels to earth from Heaven. Yes, a war in Heaven!
These three passages are say the same thing................someone is coming to earth and its not going to be good.
God then gives three Woos to those on earth and for good reason.
God writes that satan comes to this earth (we know hes thrown out of Heaven by Michael) peacefully and prosperously.
Satan coming to this earth "peacefully and prosperously" doesnt sound good at all.......peacefully and prosperously huh.......somethings not right about this!
Next God says that satan appears looking like a lamb, having horns, but having a voice of a dragon!......uh huh an innocent looking lamb that doesnt sound like a lamb...............hmmmm!........doesnt sound right!
And in Revelation we are warned about the "antichrist". Whats interesting about this is "anti" translates back in the greek language to "instead of".
So we have an "instead of christ" coming to earth peacefully and prosperously looking like a lamb.
What has the lamb always been a symbol of?
Keep this in mind when reading what Christ has to say about shortening the time satan is on earth from 7 years to 5 months.
Christ shortens the time because if it were possible to fool the Elect there wouldnt be any flesh to left save.
This is how good satan is at deceiving the earth into worshiping him. Hes given wonderous powers to fool the earth. What sense is there for God to give satan, whos supposedly having a pitch fork and tail, wonderous powers? Doesnt make a lot of sense does it....................but does it if you understand what the elect know.
satan is so good at deception Christ shortens satans time to 5 months for the elects sake.......not the earth sake, but for the elect sake!
So lets see if any of you can add.
satan is kicked from earth as the antichrist or "instead of christ" that looks like Christ (the lamb) having horns (power) but having a voice of a dragon (wouldnt expect satan to sound any different would you?) being peaceful and prosperous (cant fool the earth slicing heads off now can you) and given wonderous powers.
Sounds like an "instead of" Christ to me........ a fake imposter christ!
Now Jesus says his second coming is at the last trumpet....well theres only 7 trumpets, 7 vials, and 7 seals total. The 6th seal, 6th vial and 6th trumpet we are warned of a bad person coming. Well guess who coming to fool the earth playing acting as christ before the real Christ appears?
Not one of you knew this untuil now.

motla68
11-21-11, 06:18 PM
I have heard that before and so say you. A few books missing from the bibles these days, if a majority of the bible is mostly translated through symbolism why would all of a sudden they speak in a literal sense? So many people have predicted end times and have been wrong so far, even that bible warns of these things. I do not worry myself over the whos, whys and whats anymore, I can only see nature mimic itself through man's creations, I don't believe anyone can prevent events from happening so all we can do is use some tools for guidance of how we carry on about life and love thy neighbor the best we can, all these events happen for natures own reasons, over time it recycles itself and starts all over again. I hear a forest fire is good for nature this way, burns out all the impurities and the seeds beneath start life all over again same as we do from one generation to the next.
Could it be possible that these events come to life because we manifest them through the kind of energy we produce?

stoneFree
11-21-11, 06:37 PM
Jesse, I'll see your Woo and raise you one. Woo woo. All Aboooaaard! HAHAHAHA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MLp7YNTznE)

So, if the last trumpet is about to sound . . . there's an additional reason for me not to pay taxes, credit cards & the mortgage, eh?

BTW, the banking cartel continues to raid gold/silver on the COMEX today. Stock up while there's still any left. http://www.tfmetalsreport.com

jesse james
11-21-11, 07:34 PM
I have heard that before and so say you. A few books missing from the bibles these days, if a majority of the bible is mostly translated through symbolism why would all of a sudden they speak in a literal sense? So many people have predicted end times and have been wrong so far, even that bible warns of these things. I do not worry myself over the whos, whys and whats anymore, I can only see nature mimic itself through man's creations, I don't believe anyone can prevent events from happening so all we can do is use some tools for guidance of how we carry on about life and love thy neighbor the best we can, all these events happen for natures own reasons, over time it recycles itself and starts all over again. I hear a forest fire is good for nature this way, burns out all the impurities and the seeds beneath start life all over again same as we do from one generation to the next.
Could it be possible that these events come to life because we manifest them through the kind of energy we produce?
Those who previously predicted and failed didnt take in consideration the parable of the fig tree. Thats the parable God said to learn!
That parable didnt fullfill until 1948 and that generation will not pass before the return of the King...................that generation is getting grey hair and look at all the events coming to pass!
Live like theres no tommorrow then.....................you might not be written in the book of Life to have a tommorrow..................your choices

Hbert997
11-21-11, 07:34 PM
jesse james...is what's presented here in this 21-page pamphlet what you're driving at?:

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citizenship/citizenshipdiagrams.pdf

Hbert

motla68
11-21-11, 08:06 PM
Those who previously predicted and failed didnt take in consideration the parable of the fig tree. Thats the parable God said to learn!
That parable didnt fullfill until 1948 and that generation will not pass before the return of the King...................that generation is getting grey hair and look at all the events coming to pass!
Live like theres no tommorrow then.....................you might not be written in the book of Life to have a tommorrow..................your choices

Nobody can change the past, will we have a tomorrow, or a week or a month? or if there is no tomorrow. How can you say for sure if you have not experienced it yet?

FEAR - False Evidence Appearing Real

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txlXcJDtDwM

Isaiah 65: 16 " That he who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth; and he that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of truth; because the former troubles are forgotten, and because they are hid from mine eyes. "

jesse james
11-21-11, 08:25 PM
Nobody can change the past, will we have a tomorrow, or a week or a month? or if there is no tomorrow. How can you say for sure if you have not experienced it yet?

FEAR - False Evidence Appearing Real

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txlXcJDtDwM
You get it, but dont care. You have a problem with authority and it shows.
The attitude you have is one of carelessness...................foolish stupidity!
You take the number of the beast and you are in danger of being destroyed............as in no longer exists!...........................no future............as in no tommorrow!
And you'll be wiped from memory of those who have overcame...................this is what is referenced as "blotted".
Yes God uses "blotted" a few times.
There will be no sorrow in heaven and that means memory of a loved one who didnt overcome is wiped.
You wont even be remembered!

stoneFree
11-21-11, 10:14 PM
You don't sound well today jesse. What's troubling you?

Another win for our side:
Foreclosure Firm Steven J. Baum to Close Down (http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/11/21/foreclosure-firm-steven-j-baum-to-close-down/)

Continue playing?

motla68
11-21-11, 11:27 PM
You get it, but dont care. You have a problem with authority and it shows.
The attitude you have is one of carelessness...................foolish stupidity!
You take the number of the beast and you are in danger of being destroyed............as in no longer exists!...........................no future............as in no tommorrow!
And you'll be wiped from memory of those who have overcame...................this is what is referenced as "blotted".
Yes God uses "blotted" a few times.
There will be no sorrow in heaven and that means memory of a loved one who didnt overcome is wiped.
You wont even be remembered!

Really, are you sure about that ? What proof do you have that i do not care, are you sure it is not a manifestation in your own head because i do not think the same way as you?

How do you know for sure whether i take it or i give it? Is the name of your person listed as grantor in their system?

Who gave you authority to be judge over others, does that belong to you?

Why does it always have to be someone else's problem? That is some pretty wild assumptions you have there.

motla68
11-21-11, 11:32 PM
You don't sound well today jesse. What's troubling you?

Another win for our side:
Foreclosure Firm Steven J. Baum to Close Down (http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/11/21/foreclosure-firm-steven-j-baum-to-close-down/)

Continue playing?

It is comical how the article twists things in favor of corporatism, all those hard working people who lost their job, no sympathy here. A few more of our fellow man just earned themselves more time to keep what was given to them by a higher power.

jesse james
11-22-11, 01:09 AM
You don't sound well today jesse. What's troubling you?

Another win for our side:
Foreclosure Firm Steven J. Baum to Close Down (http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/11/21/foreclosure-firm-steven-j-baum-to-close-down/)

Continue playing?
Nothings troubling me. Why do you insist I'm someone I'm not?
I want the system to go down, the Bible says it will.
Whats coming next is the problem.
They will wish for mountains to cover them their shame is that great.

jesse james
11-22-11, 01:19 AM
Really, are you sure about that ? What proof do you have that i do not care, are you sure it is not a manifestation in your own head because i do not think the same way as you?

How do you know for sure whether i take it or i give it? Is the name of your person listed as grantor in their system?

Who gave you authority to be judge over others, does that belong to you?

Why does it always have to be someone else's problem? That is some pretty wild assumptions you have there.
Your carefree attitude towards the events that are coming says you havent a clue nor care. Your attitude towards the Word is of a tree hugger. You are only interested in God if something is in it for you. You use the Word when ever someone is looking.
You didnt know satan is coming to play act as christ until I told you.
I do know and I can tell when I'm in the midst of one of Gods elect.

stoneFree
11-22-11, 01:39 AM
Oh great, you're a Calvinist bankster minion too. Yes, the fiat system is going down alright; likely starting with the Euro, which has only 2 possible outcomes (http://gainspainscapital.com/?p=1085):

1) The ECB prints money and Germany leaves the EU

2) Germany remains in the EU but moves to kick other countries out as the defaults start coming fast

And I'm wondering why you left out the ""Wooo to those giving suckle" bit from this rendition that you included in the FreedomWatch (http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forums/16625-freedom-watch-show-ideas/suggestions/180526-cracking-the-code-by-pete-hendrickson?) post.

jesse james
11-22-11, 02:08 AM
Oh great, you're a Calvinist bankster minion too. Yes, the fiat system is going down alright; likely starting with the Euro, which has only 2 possible outcomes (http://gainspainscapital.com/?p=1085):


And I'm wondering why you left out the ""Wooo to those giving suckle" bit from this rendition that you included in the FreedomWatch (http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forums/16625-freedom-watch-show-ideas/suggestions/180526-cracking-the-code-by-pete-hendrickson?) post.
I left it out because nobody here would understand it.....including you!
Hows your delusion?
Taking the prescriptions I hope to keep it in check?

stoneFree
11-22-11, 02:26 AM
No, I don't take drugs; you'll have to come up with another way to kill me.
They will wish for mountains to cover them their shame is that great.
I detect a hint of remorse in your tone today, Jesse. That's a step forward. Shame that you've misrepresented the law all these years? Shame that you tried to keep us from lawful money remedy? Shame that you deceived Americans into paying taxes they didn't owe?

http://harveyorgan.blogspot.com

jesse james
11-22-11, 03:00 AM
No, I don't take drugs; you'll have to come up with another way to kill me.
I detect a hint of remorse in your tone today, Jesse. That's a step forward. Shame that you've misrepresented the law all these years? Shame that you tried to keep us from lawful money remedy? Shame that you deceived Americans into paying taxes they didn't owe?

http://harveyorgan.blogspot.com
I misrepresent the law? You detect remorse like you can not procure a statute saying that a fiat resever note in your pocket causes liability. Wow really are delusional arent you!
I showed the statutes that authorize deduction and witholding....funny how it starts in title 42 Social Security. Then repeated in chapter 21 of title 26 which leads to chapter 24 of the same title. Has nothing to do with "lawful" money at all or fiat, but worked credits towards Social Security benefits.
Ever notice that nobody really responds to your gibberish?
I'll put you back on ignore and nobody is gonna respond except you under another account name.......hahaha!
Must hurt huh?
Hand you enough rope....................

Hbert997
11-22-11, 03:07 AM
jesse james...is what's presented here in this 21-page pamphlet what you're driving at?:

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citizenship/citizenshipdiagrams.pdf

Hbert

Reposting from earlier today...

jesse james, your thoughts?

Hbert

motla68
11-22-11, 03:55 AM
Your carefree attitude towards the events that are coming says you havent a clue nor care. Your attitude towards the Word is of a tree hugger. You are only interested in God if something is in it for you. You use the Word when ever someone is looking.
You didnt know satan is coming to play act as christ until I told you.
I do know and I can tell when I'm in the midst of one of Gods elect.

Yes, I live life in a literal sense and not some ghostly image of what life should be. I call all these paper instruments for what they are when the offer is made and enjoy their reaction when they walk away with tail between the legs.

Wow! talk about delusional, think you know me, sound like you been taking drugs or drunk.
Your ideas are very contraindicative and very comical, you say i do not care about anything but then call me a tree hugger.. LOL!
I have done lots of stuff for others without charge, you have no idea.
One thing is for sure though, I know my food does not originate at the store.

Satan is coming, got to tell God's people, next thing you will be doing is calling me satan and asking donations for your church of jesse. Truly entertainment!

motla68
11-22-11, 04:21 AM
I misrepresent the law? You detect remorse like you can not procure a statute saying that a fiat resever note in your pocket causes liability. Wow really are delusional arent you!
I showed the statutes that authorize deduction and witholding....funny how it starts in title 42 Social Security. Then repeated in chapter 21 of title 26 which leads to chapter 24 of the same title. Has nothing to do with "lawful" money at all or fiat, but worked credits towards Social Security benefits.
Ever notice that nobody really responds to your gibberish?
I'll put you back on ignore and nobody is gonna respond except you under another account name.......hahaha!
Must hurt huh?
Hand you enough rope....................

It actually starts when the pen hits the paper application and then when you get older not correcting the mistake. These statutes seem to be one of your Gods, that must be a lot of work to keep up with all that. There is another law that has gone unchanged for thousands of years, but you would rather chase tail in them statutes and ridicule anyone who doesn't.

stoneFree
11-22-11, 04:51 AM
Yes Motla, you are perhaps beginning to see that "jesse james" isn't who he claims to be. He knows the statutes well, I submit that's because he's a tax attorney. Quite possibly the founder of Quatloos.com a/k/a Famspear, Jay Adkisson (http://www.ripoffreport.com/attorneys-legal-services/jay-adkisson/jay-adkisson-attorney-riser-a-a99f9.htm), Larry Williams, sooltauq. Setting up easily busted statutory trusts appears to be his specialty. He's a minion of the banking elite, the 1%, sent here because. . . . well quite simply because We have found the Holy Grail. We've legally & lawfully opted-out of SS and Income taxes. We don't pay the banksters' tribute & there's nothing DOJ/IRS can do about it. Aside from the statutes that don't apply to us he brings nothing but ridicule, disinfo, lies & diversion. He's got nothing. He's a beaten man.

jesse james
11-22-11, 12:46 PM
It actually starts when the pen hits the paper application and then when you get older not correcting the mistake. These statutes seem to be one of your Gods, that must be a lot of work to keep up with all that. There is another law that has gone unchanged for thousands of years, but you would rather chase tail in them statutes and ridicule anyone who doesn't.
You know Motla68 its gotta be hell for you to admit defeat.....................you're right it does start at the application. Naaaaa..............the statutes arent my gods. The statutes are like leaving popcorn as a trail so you know your way back.
Like I said before the statutes in hendricksons case werent interpreted correctly and need be.
As far as me ridiculing goes................thats all in your perspective.
When I was in my early 20's I worked in Vero Beach Florida as a carpenter building houses on the beach where I was tooled up with a one legged old WWII vet. This guy rode my ass all day long ridiculing my every move. I thought the guy was a complete ass thinking he was pissed off at the world for losing his leg, but that was my perspective opinion about him. Turns out my perspective was wrong.
What I didnt realize at the time was he was doing the old "wax on wax off" routine with me. Then one day it dawned on me what he was doing........he was showing me all my stupid habits and short cuts.
See I made all kinds of mistakes out of ignorance thinking I had all the answers.
This old guy humbled me into using my head instead of using my back.
I appreciate what he did for me! The company left me on the finishing crew that he was heading up where I was working all the nice detailed wood work instead of using my back nailing down sheets of 3/4" plywood on the roof and all the other back breaking stuff.
Not very many 20 year olds would put up with him. He was actually a heck of a nice guy.

jesse james
11-22-11, 12:51 PM
Yes Motla, you are perhaps beginning to see that "jesse james" isn't who he claims to be. He knows the statutes well, I submit that's because he's a tax attorney. Quite possibly the founder of Quatloos.com a/k/a Famspear, Jay Adkisson (http://www.ripoffreport.com/attorneys-legal-services/jay-adkisson/jay-adkisson-attorney-riser-a-a99f9.htm), Larry Williams, sooltauq. Setting up easily busted statutory trusts appears to be his specialty. He's a minion of the banking elite, the 1%, sent here because. . . . well quite simply because We have found the Holy Grail. We've legally & lawfully opted-out of SS and Income taxes. We don't pay the banksters' tribute & there's nothing DOJ/IRS can do about it. Aside from the statutes that don't apply to us he brings nothing but ridicule, disinfo, lies & diversion. He's got nothing. He's a beaten man.
Paranoia comes with being delusional!

jesse james
11-22-11, 12:52 PM
Reposting from earlier today...

jesse james, your thoughts?

Hbert
Hbert sorry for missing your posts from earlier. I'll get back with you.
Pm me your address in case I get banned.

motla68
11-22-11, 03:57 PM
Yes Motla, you are perhaps beginning to see that "jesse james" isn't who he claims to be. He knows the statutes well, I submit that's because he's a tax attorney. Quite possibly the founder of Quatloos.com a/k/a Famspear, Jay Adkisson (http://www.ripoffreport.com/attorneys-legal-services/jay-adkisson/jay-adkisson-attorney-riser-a-a99f9.htm), Larry Williams, sooltauq. Setting up easily busted statutory trusts appears to be his specialty. He's a minion of the banking elite, the 1%, sent here because. . . . well quite simply because We have found the Holy Grail. We've legally & lawfully opted-out of SS and Income taxes. We don't pay the banksters' tribute & there's nothing DOJ/IRS can do about it. Aside from the statutes that don't apply to us he brings nothing but ridicule, disinfo, lies & diversion. He's got nothing. He's a beaten man.

Yep, another thing he cannot do is separate the man from the person, he thinks paper is skin and blood is ink virtually speaking, and that some of us have renegotiated our position and the purpose of those benefits for the benefit of all in glory of Yehovah and not to anyone exclusively.

motla68
11-22-11, 04:33 PM
You know Motla68 its gotta be hell for you to admit defeat.....................you're right it does start at the application. Naaaaa..............the statutes arent my gods. The statutes are like leaving popcorn as a trail so you know your way back.
Like I said before the statutes in hendricksons case werent interpreted correctly and need be.
As far as me ridiculing goes................thats all in your perspective.
When I was in my early 20's I worked in Vero Beach Florida as a carpenter building houses on the beach where I was tooled up with a one legged old WWII vet. This guy rode my ass all day long ridiculing my every move. I thought the guy was a complete ass thinking he was pissed off at the world for losing his leg, but that was my perspective opinion about him. Turns out my perspective was wrong.
What I didnt realize at the time was he was doing the old "wax on wax off" routine with me. Then one day it dawned on me what he was doing........he was showing me all my stupid habits and short cuts.
See I made all kinds of mistakes out of ignorance thinking I had all the answers.
This old guy humbled me into using my head instead of using my back.
I appreciate what he did for me! The company left me on the finishing crew that he was heading up where I was working all the nice detailed wood work instead of using my back nailing down sheets of 3/4" plywood on the roof and all the other back breaking stuff.
Not very many 20 year olds would put up with him. He was actually a heck of a nice guy.

Technically speaking you were used as a tool, because that is all he knew was to be a tool and teach others to be a tool to benefit his next position in the company. This is not always a bad thing though because somebody has to do the work, my argument is with the delivery and presentment of it, sure you learn a couple new tricks but in the sense of humanity you were always knocked down and never lifted up, therefore your sense of humanity never matured and it stays where it always has been and you do the same as he had done to everyone around you.
Before you say I am way off, let me tell you this; I was in that same situation, in a electrical and electronics class, the teacher was retired from the navy and when he first got out he was building small transformers for a job before landing the position at the school, every other word he cursed, constantly had a cigarette in his mouth and in his class if you got an answer wrong he yelled at you so loud you could hear the metal vibrate on the storage cabinets, I sadly watched how others started to act like him too, could not wait to get out of that class, when graduating from that school it did not take long to discover the effects it had on me, still a youngin my whole family about ousted me for acting like such an asshole, it took me a cross country journey to break free from that mentality, now I have a family of my own have raised hands on, not just having a nanny take care of them or just the wife deal with the children, I was there every step of the way and through that I experienced how life is more important then having a shit load of money or always having the mentality that I am always right and everyone else is wrong. Everyones blood runs red, we all need that to survive so what makes you or I any better then anyone else? Knowledge of not always being right. Search in the bible itself, it says knowledge is a treasure, not gold or silver and it generally downplays profiting from a neighbor. Love shouldn't cost a things in the saying spirit of an old 80s singer. So to say I am defeated, hay whatever floats your boat dude, it does not effect my life any.

stoneFree
11-22-11, 05:02 PM
You are charitable Motla, to believe jesse has related a true story. The level of his depravity has fallen so low that he'd tell you black was white if it served his purpose. I suspect if probed, he couldn't tell you what hammer & type nail he used to cedar shingle those beach houses, nor what a carpenter does just before nailing up those shingles.

jesse james
11-22-11, 05:38 PM
You are charitable Motla, to believe jesse has related a true story. The level of his depravity has fallen so low that he'd tell you black was white if it served his purpose. I suspect if probed, he couldn't tell you what hammer & type nail he used to cedar shingle those beach houses, nor what a carpenter does just before nailing up those shingles.
Hahahaha.....hammers were trim hammers.....no thatched head you see on framing hammers, the nails were bronze ring shank and the grade (a) knotless cedar siding was imported from europe. The interior wood was from europe...grade (A) knotless timber only to have everything painted white.
The fire place was cut polished corral as were the steps.
Had over 100,000 chicago bricks outlining the driveway, steps, pool and sea wall.
The foremans son would go out at noon and snorckle lobster or two every know and then. Wouldnt let me go because the area was a WWII training site for beach invasion. The area had barbed wire structures like you see in the Normandy invasion under water which he thought I could get tangled up in from the current........like I say it was a training site in the 40s. Three lots down the military engineers from Cocoa Beach airforce base were called in to defuse an unexploded 500lb bomb the backhole operater unearthed digging the pool. One of two in the area that year dug up.

stoneFree
11-22-11, 06:10 PM
Hahahaha.....hammers were trim hammers.....no thatched head you see on framing hammers, the nails were bronze ring shank and the grade (a) knotless cedar siding was imported from europe. The interior wood was from europe...grade (A) knotless timber only to have everything painted white.
The fire place was cut polished corral as were the steps.
Had over 100,000 chicago bricks outlining the driveway, steps, pool and sea wall.
you said "hammers were.." That implies hammers were supplied, not your own. You didn't state brand or weight. Any carpenter worth a dang brings his own hammer and comes to rely on & love it like an extension of himself. Mine's a 20oz Vaughan fiberglass straight claw. Conclusion: you don't know what you're talking about.

you said "hammers were trim hammers.....no thatched head you see on framing hammers," thatched head? Were you born in Britain 400 years ago? We don't thatch roofs here in the US. Conclusion: you don't know what you're talking about.

"the grade (a) knotless cedar siding was imported from europe." It's unlikely they'd import cedar when North American cedar is better & cheaper. Conclusion: you don't know jack about carpentry.

"nails were bronze ring shank" Galvanized steel is cheaper & more common for a nail that doesn't show. Conclusion: plausible but unlikely.

"The fire place was cut polished corral as were the steps." It's spelled coral, it grows undersea, and it's not polished for landscape use. You may be referring to coral rock, a type of limestone. Conclusion: possible.

And you failed to state what a carpenter does just before nailing up shingles. Probably because you've never done it. Conclusion: you made up the story.

Play again?

stoneFree
11-23-11, 06:12 PM
I, stoneFree, a follower of Christ the Nazarene, greet you in the grace & peace of the living God.

Uncharacteristically, jesse has not responded. He has talked of calamity and about deletion. I'm concerned for his well-being. I'm not certain he's in danger, but I hope you'll join me in prayer that, with God's grace, the crisis will pass quickly. That he'll turn from darkness and embrace the light.

We have much to be thankful for this Thanksgiving! So much truth has been revealed to us. Life's been good to me so far.

As we approach the season of giving, you may have noticed the Black Friday & other sales have already begun. As for myself, instead of "Made in China," I'll be converting paper money into real money as gifts this year. The banking cartel has manipulated the spot price of gold & silver to bargain levels (necessary to maintain the illusion of fiat money). That manipulation will not be allowed much longer. Then true price discovery will drive prices to a level multiples higher. As an example, here are silver dollars at spot price:
http://www.apmex.com/black-wednesday-sale/default.aspx

Edit: Went back and found the silver dollars at spot sold out. Here's silver American Eagles @ about 18 bitcoin each:
http://coinabul.com/silver/index.php/silver-coins-bitcoin/american-silver-eagles.html

jesse james
11-23-11, 07:06 PM
I, stoneFree, a follower of Christ the Nazarene, greet you in the grace & peace of the living God.

Uncharacteristically, jesse has not responded. He has talked of calamity and about deletion. I'm concerned for his well-being. I'm not certain he's in danger, but I hope you'll join me in prayer that, with God's grace, the crisis will pass quickly. That he'll turn from darkness and embrace the light.

We have much to be thankful for this Thanksgiving! So much truth has been revealed to us. Life's been good to me so far.

As we approach the season of giving, you may have noticed the Black Friday & other sales have already begun. As for myself, instead of "Made in China," I'll be converting paper money into real money as gifts this year. The banking cartel has manipulated the spot price of gold & silver to bargain levels (necessary to maintain the illusion of fiat money). That manipulation will not be allowed much longer. Then true price discovery will drive prices to a level multiples higher. As an example, here are silver dollars at spot price:
http://www.apmex.com/black-wednesday-sale/default.aspx

Edit: Went back and found the silver dollars at spot sold out. Here's silver American Eagles @ about 18 bitcoin each:
http://coinabul.com/silver/index.php/silver-coins-bitcoin/american-silver-eagles.html
Why should I respond ..........it wont make any difference to you what I say.
Besides its fun keeping you in suspense! Look at all that energy you spent trying to look cool but dont!
Maybe you should understand that I dont jump to liars and bullshitters and someone who demonstrates "delusion". You know that medical definition I posted describing when someone absolutely beleives something when overwhelming evidence exists to the contrary........yeah that one!

So you claim in front of witnesses that you are follower of Christs and yet tell lies.
I wouldnt do that if I were you.

Hey have you found those statutes providing liability I've been asking for?

stoneFree
11-23-11, 08:08 PM
Phew. Glad you're OK. If you're threatened & need safe haven let me know. I'm still praying for you jesse.

Thanks to all taking the courageous stand to fight for their freedom. Freedom isn't easy. It must be earned. Our forefathers knew it and sacrificed their lives, wealth and future for what they knew to be right.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." ~ guess who

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/germany-sells-150000-troy-ounces-gold-october-not-why-you-think

jesse james
11-25-11, 02:48 AM
Phew. Glad you're OK. If you're threatened & need safe haven let me know. I'm still praying for you jesse.

Thanks to all taking the courageous stand to fight for their freedom. Freedom isn't easy. It must be earned. Our forefathers knew it and sacrificed their lives, wealth and future for what they knew to be right.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." ~ guess who

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/germany-sells-150000-troy-ounces-gold-october-not-why-you-think
Dont trip flattering yourself.

stoneFree
11-25-11, 05:50 AM
and a Happy Thanksgiving to you too. Thanks for coming here, showing us your true colors and validating us.

Hey, how's that "control dissent" gig working out for ya? The one where you try to define normal, manage perception for the elite and their scheme for global domination? Seems to me it's backfiring quite nicely.

http://www.thrivemovement.com

jesse james
11-25-11, 02:43 PM
and a Happy Thanksgiving to you too. Thanks for coming here, showing us your true colors and validating us.

Hey, how's that "control dissent" gig working out for ya? The one where you try to define normal, manage perception for the elite and their scheme for global domination? Seems to me it's backfiring quite nicely.

http://www.thrivemovement.com
Validating you?.............................you really are delusional arent you.
You are something arent you Libra.
You lie to your fellow CtCers. You lead them to beleive you are successful at filing the CtC returns when the truth is you control your reporting.
And they arent buying it either!
Nice little touch the other day talking to Pete sons on how "successful" you are. Talk about sucking up.......you're pathetic really.
Next you cant procure any support in 411 when all the evidence on liability is sitting in title 26..........a title strictly for taxes.
You're nothing but deceitful and not even honest to yourself.

stoneFree
11-25-11, 03:59 PM
Yes you validate us because you come here and tell us we're all wrong. We must be doing something right, we must be to close to the truth, otherwise they wouldn't send you here to lie, ridicule & manage perception. Otherwise we wouldn't be worth the time.

I did file a so-called "Ctc return" for TY2008 and subsequently received a full refund of everything paid in towards a liability that never materialized because I didn't consent to it. As for reporting, I don't control the bank that sees all the lawful money I deposit into a checking account attached to the SS number the SSA sent me oh so many years ago. Haven't paid income tax since 2007, jesse. That really sticks in your craw don't it? Yes, many CTC readers have come here, have come to discover remedy from central banking, but don't credit me for that. It's the natural progression of things.

What you don't see is that you're losing. Earth to jesse: nobody here believes you. You're a joke, a fabrication. I guess you've forgotten you were trying to be some freedom-loving patriot who escaped Social Security?

http://maxkeiser.com/2011/11/24/2011-year-of-the-bankers-currency-collapse-social-unrest/

stoneFree
11-27-11, 12:22 AM
http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/7306/vaughan.jpg

motla68
11-27-11, 01:18 AM
Saving the one I have for fire kindling the next time I go up into the mountains, not worth much more then that anymore to me.

jesse james
11-28-11, 02:06 PM
Saving the one I have for fire kindling the next time I go up into the mountains, not worth much more then that anymore to me.
Putting the only good use of Ctc to any worthiness.

motla68
11-28-11, 02:19 PM
Putting the only good use of Ctc to any worthiness.

It has it's application if you claim citizenship or to be a suitor. I try to choose my battles carefully and that is not one of them, this is one of them processes that if you play in it they gotcha, it may not be now or a year from now, could be 10 years down the road. But on a additional note to that I do not recall where that book says anything about making a declaration of lawful money as a remedy. If someone knows please share the page number?

stoneFree
11-28-11, 05:41 PM
But on a additional note to that I do not recall where that book says anything about making a declaration of lawful money as a remedy. If someone knows please share the page number?
It does not. It does say the Income Tax is an excise on federal privilege. If we do have a choice in currency, Fed Reserve money or lawful money, then we have a choice in paying Income Taxes too. Just as we have discovered.

Turd Ferguson explains .... The Great Ponzi (http://www.tfmetalsreport.com/blog/3036/great-ponzi)

Keep stacking!

stoneFree
11-30-11, 06:37 PM
http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/7237/storecq.jpg

Rock Anthony
11-30-11, 06:50 PM
At what point do people contract to become Fed banks?
And what exactly is that signature endorsing on the back of a check? Seems superfluous, since the front is already made out to that name. And if the signature is supposed to be an acknowledgement of receipt of cash, then why is it not on the front of the check?What exactly happens contractually on the back of the check or on the bank signature card for that matter?
I have never been able to get an answer to this question from any Master of Business Administration, banker, or attorney, even though I personally know some of them.



Hmm. So now I wonder if banks required endorsement before the Federal Reserve came into existence.

allodial
11-30-11, 07:04 PM
Hmm. So now I wonder if banks required endorsement before the Federal Reserve came into existence.

The title holder has to assign the title to the payment ... somehow. Bearer instruments of course escape the requirement for endorsement. Title to a non-negotiable can be conveyed by assignment (perhaps consider the backside of stock certificate). Title to the money inuring from a negotiable instrument can be conveyed by endorsement. An endorsement can be in blank or it can be special. Similarly there are general deposits and there are special deposits.

One of the biggest change with the FRB was the obfuscation of money-related knowledge in public schools in the United States of America.

Brian
12-01-11, 03:38 AM
http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/7237/storecq.jpg

Where was this taken?

motla68
12-01-11, 03:48 AM
Hmm. So now I wonder if banks required endorsement before the Federal Reserve came into existence.

Now ask yourself who was the first ever to sign for the name to get it registered that you carry and use? then you might find out who has signing authority for it.

motla68
12-01-11, 03:54 AM
One of the biggest change with the FRB was the obfuscation of money-related knowledge in public schools in the United States of America.

And you have first hand knowledge of this? Use to be once financial education started at home, I just do not understand how people come to the conclusion that it is the public schools systems responsibility?

stoneFree
12-01-11, 04:13 AM
Where was this taken?
eastern US, Brian. Beyond that I'm reluctant to divulge because of possible retaliation by the banking cartel. (are Masons the banksters enforcers?)

allodial
12-01-11, 07:23 AM
And you have first hand knowledge of this? Use to be once financial education started at home, I just do not understand how people come to the conclusion that it is the public schools systems responsibility?

A study of the history of public schooling in the U.S., and the influence of certain well-known Families is easy to accomplish and might be fruitful. A member of the Rothschild family wrote one of his brothers and complained that he had trouble starting a banking operation because the people there were too smart--this was 1700s or 1800s. I'm unaware of anyone stating that such and such was public school's responsiblity. However, economics and the like was probably 10)% removed from the curriculum of most US high schools come 1970. These days you might learn how to endorse a check in blank and how to balance a check book (i.e. backwards accounting). If you are training public officials, you'd figure them having a clue about money might be a good idea. Not to mention a famous economist who made it clear that the made it through PhD in the 60s without studying accounting. :) For the U.S, public schooling seemed come into full swing just in time for scrip to come into play. Public schooling ... its for schooling the public no? So why the reference to private economics? Do you believe that the public doesn't have anything to do with money and that teaching about money isn't the responsibility of public schools ... even teaching it to would-be public officials is just out of the question, huh? So public officials should learn about money in private only?

So I should somehow feek OK about funding schools which promote idiocy and then whine about the ill-effects of crime and poverty? Should some "hood kid" put a 45 up against my skull in a quest for some mad skrilla (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=skrilla) I should remind him that financial education starts at home, right?

***

There are those who have asserted that German influence on college-level business and economics courses following WWII led to utter crappola being taught to the typical MBA. I foretold that one day GM or Chrysler would be taken over by a German auto company simply because the Germans saw to it American business leaders would be dumbed down to the extent that GM or Chrysler would hit the dirt in bankruptcy. I wanted a quote faxed or emailed to me for a hotel room. I never got it from any of three U.S. hotels. They sneered at me and insisted that I should just go online. They lost out on probably $50K in business. However, I got a quite in writing in 2 days from an overseas hotel. I wanted a quote from an auto dealer by fax or by email. They argued with me that they only would do that if I came in. I got one in writing via email from overseas in 2 days. They'd even ship it to me. Go figure.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51SwjUeQDLL.jpg

Read it and...weep (http://www.amazon.com/Closing-American-Mind-Allan-Bloom/dp/0671657151)?

motla68
12-01-11, 09:52 AM
A study of the history of public schooling in the U.S., and the influence of certain well-known Families is easy to accomplish and might be fruitful. A member of the Rothschild family wrote one of his brothers and complained that he had trouble starting a banking operation because the people there were too smart--this was 1700s or 1800s. I'm unaware of anyone stating that such and such was public school's responsiblity. However, economics and the like was probably 10)% removed from the curriculum of most US high schools come 1970. These days you might learn how to endorse a check in blank and how to balance a check book (i.e. backwards accounting). If you are training public officials, you'd figure them having a clue about money might be a good idea. Not to mention a famous economist who made it clear that the made it through PhD in the 60s without studying accounting. :) For the U.S, public schooling seemed come into full swing just in time for scrip to come into play. Public schooling ... its for schooling the public no? So why the reference to private economics? Do you believe that the public doesn't have anything to do with money and that teaching about money isn't the responsibility of public schools ... even teaching it to would-be public officials is just out of the question, huh? So public officials should learn about money in private only?

So I should somehow feek OK about funding schools which promote idiocy and then whine about the ill-effects of crime and poverty? Should some "hood kid" put a 45 up against my skull in a quest for some mad skrilla (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=skrilla) I should remind him that financial education starts at home, right?

***

There are those who have asserted that German influence on college-level business and economics courses following WWII led to utter crappola being taught to the typical MBA. I foretold that one day GM or Chrysler would be taken over by a German auto company simply because the Germans saw to it American business leaders would be dumbed down to the extent that GM or Chrysler would hit the dirt in bankruptcy. I wanted a quote faxed or emailed to me for a hotel room. I never got it from any of three U.S. hotels. They sneered at me and insisted that I should just go online. They lost out on probably $50K in business. However, I got a quite in writing in 2 days from an overseas hotel. I wanted a quote from an auto dealer by fax or by email. They argued with me that they only would do that if I came in. I got one in writing via email from overseas in 2 days. They'd even ship it to me. Go figure.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51SwjUeQDLL.jpg

Read it and...weep (http://www.amazon.com/Closing-American-Mind-Allan-Bloom/dp/0671657151)?

The word " Public " in the phrase public schools is in name only; (local schools around here went from a city corp to a county corp)

Wake County Public Schools
1150 Forestville Road
Wake Forest, NC 27587-7600

Wake County Public Schools in Wake Forest, NC is a private company categorized under Public Elementary and Secondary Schools. Our records show it was established in 2010 and incorporated in North Carolina.
http://www.manta.com/c/mw2vt84/wake-county-public-schools

Yes, it is all tied in. Private company operates in interest of it's shareholders and if Rothchild is the biggest shareholder, then the chips will fall where they may. You want your child to get a good education you stick them in a different private school of your choice, hopefully a better one without alternate interests or you home-school them.

Statutes are for statutory employees and those who take on the liability to act as a statutory employee.. i.e. trustee for the public names. Them names are the corporations, not you unless you consent to be one of them.

The Supreme Court has ruled: "All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…"
Rodriques v. Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor) 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985)

From their own words -

North Carolina General statutes:

Chapter 4.

Common Law.

§ 4‑1. Common law declared to be in force.

All such parts of the common law as were heretofore in force and use within this State, or so much of the common law as is not destructive of, or repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the freedom and independence of this State and the form of government therein established, and which has not been otherwise provided for in whole or in part, not abrogated, repealed, or become obsolete, are hereby declared to be in full force within this State. (1715, c. 5, ss. 2, 3, P.R.; 1778, c. 133, P.R.; R.C., c. 22; Code, s. 641; Rev., s. 932; C.S., s. 970.)

Under the common law do you not have the right to protect yourself from thugs with a 45 cali ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflecting_pool

Here is another one:

resolution n. a determination of policy of a corporation by the vote of its board of directors. Legislative bodies also pass resolutions, but they are often statements of policy, belief or appreciation, and not always enactment of statutes or ordinances.

So the next time someone fires off HJR 192 at you, let them know it is not law, just a policy.
HJR - House Joint Resolution

Brian
12-01-11, 03:01 PM
eastern US, Brian. Beyond that I'm reluctant to divulge because of possible retaliation by the banking cartel. (are Masons the banksters enforcers?)
Thanks stone!, Kinda surprised its east...figured it would be out west.

stoneFree
12-05-11, 07:19 PM
Hey motla, over at the Q Famspear has accused you of posting a fake quote:
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7892

And I suspect Famspear is our very own "jesse james."

motla68
12-05-11, 08:13 PM
Hey motla, over at the Q Famspear has accused you of posting a fake quote:
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7892

And I suspect Famspear is our very own "jesse james."

As I have said before I do not take too much stock in the opinions of Quatloos, it is not like they have ever fabricated anything.
It was my interpretation of the case based on my own knowledge, my quote as well as in the case itself was about winning
an argument over being denied due process. It was there for you all to look up and read through to form your own opinion
about the case because that is all case law is " court opinions ", that in which he did. Instead of reading into the case though
he let EGO get in the way.

Literally break down the word Quatloos though and what do you get? A kamikaze pustule with nothing to lose.

JohnnyCash
12-05-11, 09:32 PM
Um, OK. I got a fictional currency that first debuted on Star Trek in 1968, The Gamesters of Triskelion (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_Gamesters_of_Triskelion) ...
The brains speak, identifying themselves as the Providers, ancient beings of pure intellect that pass their time gambling between one another, wagering sums of "quatloos" over the outcomes of the contests. They demand to hear Kirk's own wager. He tells the brains that he and his team can defeat the drill thralls. If Kirk's crew are victorious, the brains must free the Enterprise and let the team, including all thralls, go. The Providers must in turn end their death games and use their knowledge to teach the thralls how to start a free society. If Kirk loses, he promises a lifetime of entertainment in further competitions with the entire ship's crew.

Can't speak for anyone else but, none of my posts over at Quatloos.com have been approved for over 2 months now. Censorship via extreme moderation. What are you so afraid of Famspear? My take is I've learned too much truth (much of it learned here at Planet Merrill) and they don't like me sharing it.

________________________________
You Earth people are most stimulating.

jesse james
12-06-11, 12:59 PM
Hey motla, over at the Q Famspear has accused you of posting a fake quote:
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7892

And I suspect Famspear is our very own "jesse james."
So your weak conspiracistic mind still beleives I'm famspear huh?
For all that matters for questioning something that you simply haven't and cannot prove I could as well be the golly green giant in your eyes.
You cant win can you!

jesse james
12-06-11, 01:03 PM
As I have said before I do not take too much stock in the opinions of Quatloos, it is not like they have ever fabricated anything.
It was my interpretation of the case based on my own knowledge, my quote as well as in the case itself was about winning
an argument over being denied due process. It was there for you all to look up and read through to form your own opinion
about the case because that is all case law is " court opinions ", that in which he did. Instead of reading into the case though
he let EGO get in the way.

Literally break down the word Quatloos though and what do you get? A kamikaze pustule with nothing to lose.
And this is what lead me away from pete hendrickson. Pete would misquote court cases altogether.
He even lead people to beleive his version of "privilege" to suit his defunked and misguided "cracking the code", and being of no surprise, is found in the "FICTION" section of public libraries

David Merrill
12-06-11, 03:36 PM
The diverse opinions (squabbling) being generated around Motla68 lately seems to be, from all parties thought out and substantiated. My stance is that as long as people can articulate their arguments without resorting to evidence of a poor vocabulary - words like liar, and bullshit, then people who enjoy it may read it and those who do not can avoid it. My hope is of course that this kind of bickering will not detract from intelligible threads.

stoneFree
12-06-11, 03:44 PM
ohh "conspiracistic." That's an awful big non-word for a lowly carpenter. Yes, thanks to Cracking the Code (http://losthorizons.com/CtCforFree.pdf) and Planet Merrill, I've won. I've beaten the banksters' system of wealth extraction. And now we work to set all of America free. Here's the two 60-second Swiss America ads refused by the networks: https://www.swissamerica.com/offer/tv.php

oh and the reason you're so bored over at the Q is ... you've squelched all debate, silenced all your critics via extreme moderation. Whaddya expect? You've only got 17 users online. You've become an incestuous little clique of 1 percenters laughing at the 99%.

jesse james
12-06-11, 04:11 PM
ohh "conspiracistic." That's an awful big non-word for a lowly carpenter. Yes, thanks to Cracking the Code (http://losthorizons.com/CtCforFree.pdf) and Planet Merrill, I've won. I've beaten the banksters' system of wealth extraction. And now we work to set all of America free. Here's the two 60-second Swiss America ads refused by the networks: https://www.swissamerica.com/offer/tv.php

oh and the reason you're so bored over at the Q is ... you've squelched all debate, silenced all your critics via extreme moderation. Whaddya expect? You've only got 17 users online. You've become an incestuous little clique of 1 percenters laughing at the 99%.
I'm not a carpenter nor am I famspear or even associated with quatloos (only when I was in my early early 20's was a a carpenter)......................electrician!

Actually "conspiracist" is a word.
And no you haven't yet won.
This lawfully money wont hold any water at all.
Remember that court case where a employer paid in gold coin to skirt under the 600.00 minimum requirement to report?
He was convicted of fraud because the coin was worth much more than the face value.
Yeah you rememebr that case but done want to bring it up.
You are only left alone because you have control over reporting to the SSA..................and thats it. It has nothing at all to do with Hendrickson or Merrill. The gold coin case proves Merrill is wrong.....and well hendrickson was convicted so you havent proven you won anything.

David Merrill
12-06-11, 04:42 PM
ohh "conspiracistic." That's an awful big non-word for a lowly carpenter. Yes, thanks to Cracking the Code (http://losthorizons.com/CtCforFree.pdf) and Planet Merrill, I've won. I've beaten the banksters' system of wealth extraction. And now we work to set all of America free. Here's the two 60-second Swiss America ads refused by the networks: https://www.swissamerica.com/offer/tv.php

oh and the reason you're so bored over at the Q is ... you've squelched all debate, silenced all your critics via extreme moderation. Whaddya expect? You've only got 17 users online. You've become an incestuous little clique of 1 percenters laughing at the 99%.

That brings on a big chuckle here!


I'm not a carpenter nor am I famspear or even associated with quatloos (only when I was in my early early 20's was a a carpenter)......................electrician!

Actually "conspiracist" is a word.
And no you haven't yet won.
This lawfully money wont hold any water at all.
Remember that court case where a employer paid in gold coin to skirt under the 600.00 minimum requirement to report?
He was convicted of fraud because the coin was worth much more than the face value.
Yeah you rememebr that case but done want to bring it up.
You are only left alone because you have control over reporting to the SSA..................and thats it. It has nothing at all to do with Hendrickson or Merrill. The gold coin case proves Merrill is wrong.....and well hendrickson was convicted so you havent proven you won anything.

I don't see it that way. All it proves is that you have not watched my videos.



Public Money v. Private Credit (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImYmZlMTU5ZGQtYTIyZi00NjZjLWIyM zctOWFkZjhhZDM1MGEy&hl=en_US).
Federal Reserve Act - Remedy (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImNjA0NTQ5MTItNTg2Mi00N2QyLWE5Y 2UtMDMzNGU0YWE3NWE5&hl=en_US).



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B-Buo5XXoY

To read the article alone Click Here (http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/convincing.html).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e16PNkWlPZA

stoneFree
12-06-11, 04:42 PM
Actually "conspiracist" is a word.
And no you haven't yet won.
This lawfully money wont hold any water at all.
Remember that court case where a employer paid in gold coin to skirt under the 600.00 minimum requirement to report?
Yes, conspiracist is a word, but you said "conspiracistic." You really have a hard time not misconstruing what others say, don't you? As for the employer paying in gold coin, we already explained. If the gold was purchased with unredeemed private credit of the Federal Reserve, then guess who has first lien on it?

Lawful money is holding water just fine for us J. I'm sorry you're unhappy with my win.

EDIT: Pete Hendrickson has released this 27-page book today.
THE SHIELD (http://www.losthorizons.com/TheShield.pdf)

allodial
12-07-11, 02:11 AM
Hmm. So now I wonder if banks required endorsement before the Federal Reserve came into existence.

This is more of an expansion on (post #202)... if an instrument is payable to order, it cannot be paid until the order is affixed. A mere signature of the payee without any extra writing is akin to writing "Pay to bearer". You might do well to look study negotiability of promissory notes and ancient "Statutes of Anne". There are likely a few treatises which reference such. "Pay to" vs "Pay to the order of".... assignment vs. negotiation. Negotiation is merely a convenient way of assigning title however it may open doors for the Law Merchant to apply whereas "Pay to" might not invoke the Lex Mercatoria.

[ Post #202 > http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?489-endorsing-and-SS-a-big-question!&p=5649&viewfull=1#post5649 ]

David Merrill
12-07-11, 09:25 AM
This is more of an expansion on (post #202)... if an instrument is payable to order, it cannot be paid until the order is affixed. A mere signature of the payee without any extra writing is akin to writing "Pay to bearer". You might do well to look study negotiability of promissory notes and ancient "Statutes of Anne". There are likely a few treatises which reference such. "Pay to" vs "Pay to the order of".... assignment vs. negotiation. Negotiation is merely a convenient way of assigning title however it may open doors for the Law Merchant to apply whereas "Pay to" might not invoke the Lex Mercatoria.

[ Post #202 > http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?489-endorsing-and-SS-a-big-question!&p=5649&viewfull=1#post5649 ]

We evolve in our thinking.

This poem is difficult to read through because of the distracting doodles, but it has some interesting themes.


http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/6808/companioncreator.jpg

I have put this to memory and when I recite it to The Science of Mind crowd, they are quite impressed. The line about 'being the first to walk on land' goes over well I suspect because we love the idea of the Christ Mind and that performing miracles through metaphysics, mastery of the natural law, is available to us too. That is indeed the stuff that the kingdom of heaven is made of. However it has a dual meaning to me. The other meaning has been in me for many years now as I lead people to notify the admiralty that they are courts of competent jurisdiction (courts of record) and therefore are capable of keeping their feet dry.

That is and always has been the purpose of the 1789 'saving to suitors' clause.


Regards,

David Merrill.

jesse james
12-07-11, 01:37 PM
That brings on a big chuckle here!



I don't see it that way. All it proves is that you have not watched my videos.



Public Money v. Private Credit (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImYmZlMTU5ZGQtYTIyZi00NjZjLWIyM zctOWFkZjhhZDM1MGEy&hl=en_US).
Federal Reserve Act - Remedy (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImNjA0NTQ5MTItNTg2Mi00N2QyLWE5Y 2UtMDMzNGU0YWE3NWE5&hl=en_US).



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B-Buo5XXoY

To read the article alone Click Here (http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/convincing.html).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e16PNkWlPZA
Watched some of both videos and not one of them addresses my concern about the tax imposition within Social Security and how Social Security 3121(a) "wages" are included in the wages (3401(a)) which the government defines for deduction and withholding.
Most working class Americans didnt pay income taxes until 1940. 1939 was the first year they were subject to withholding and deduction for the Section 1 tax only to find themselves filing their taxes by April 15th in 1940.
1940 is 27 years after 1913 when the reserve act came about. So Dave lets be honest by addressing why millions of Americans didnt pay taxes for 27 years until 1940 and yet used the same fiat reserve notes we use today?
This 27 years is a big hurdle to overcome Mr. Merrill as history is proving the fiat endorsing theory of yours isnt corralating with unprecedented historical fact. You have 27 years of explaining why millions of Americans didn't pay taxes until the enactment of Social Security.
I'm not at all trying to discredit you Mr. Merrill. As you say we evolve in thinking which I beleive we get sharper and sharper in understanding when the correct questions are posed and (honestly) answered.

David Merrill
12-07-11, 03:45 PM
Watched some of both videos and not one of them addresses my concern about the tax imposition within Social Security and how Social Security 3121(a) "wages" are included in the wages (3401(a)) which the government defines for deduction and withholding.
Most working class Americans didnt pay income taxes until 1940. 1939 was the first year they were subject to withholding and deduction for the Section 1 tax only to find themselves filing their taxes by April 15th in 1940.
1940 is 27 years after 1913 when the reserve act came about. So Dave lets be honest by addressing why millions of Americans didnt pay taxes for 27 years until 1940 and yet used the same fiat reserve notes we use today?
This 27 years is a big hurdle to overcome Mr. Merrill as history is proving the fiat endorsing theory of yours isnt corralating with unprecedented historical fact. You have 27 years of explaining why millions of Americans didn't pay taxes until the enactment of Social Security.
I'm not at all trying to discredit you Mr. Merrill. As you say we evolve in thinking which I beleive we get sharper and sharper in understanding when the correct questions are posed and (honestly) answered.


I believe the article (http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/convincing.html) in my first video does but that you missed it.


Two years after H.J.R. 192, Congress passed the Social Security Act, which the Supreme Court upheld as a valid act imposing a valid income tax: 'Charles C. Steward Mach. Co. v, Davis' 301 U.S. 548 (1937).


I can knock off twenty years of your twenty-seven with the original 1913 charter for the Fed Banks of twenty years.


http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/267/charterexpiressmall.jpg

You might see that the Supreme Court did not address how Social Security qualified as a valid Income Tax for four more years after that so that is twenty-four of your twenty-seven years right there. In the Introduction to The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin Delano Roosevelt we find that the New Deal was not invented as a Logo for the Bankers' Holiday and the War on the Great Depression until 1938.


Most working class Americans didnt pay income taxes until 1940. 1939 was the first year they were subject to withholding and deduction for the Section 1 tax only to find themselves filing their taxes by April 15th in 1940.


That would sound about right. The income tax as Hitler came into power would be like a war chest. Here is the formation of the new trust in 1933:


http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/4556/governmentbondslarge.jpg

You can see how that is a far cry from a fully formed income tax system for the new Fed banks in general. Presuming your comment to be true it took seven years to implement the New Deal Trust, if that is what you want to call it. It took seven years to complete a formal taxation system in America. That sounds reasonable, considering that there being an alternative to endorsing private credit was kept secret through fraud by omission. Albeit there was a much more prevalent sense of patriotism then, according to my veteran father anyway, a lot of people would have chosen to redeem lawful money by demand.



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. In my Dad's final days I read a great deal of Carroll QUIGLEY's Tragedy and Hope; The History of the World in Our Time out loud to him. It drew some great recollections as his long term memory was excellent. We discussed things like you are saying, usually just before my reading aloud knocked him out like a light.




http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/3079/noticeanddemand.jpg

David Merrill
12-07-11, 04:00 PM
P.P.S. Above me in the shelf are the five years of the Roosevelt Administration from 1932-1936. And the full set is available to me at the federal repository. If you really wanted to outline what you are saying in detail about the implementation of the Income Tax that would be a great way to do it. For the April 15th Deadline though, you might have to go earlier by a few years (1861):



http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/6479/conventionextraordinary.jpg





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg0obxZmqrk

allodial
12-07-11, 06:12 PM
If the SSA sold the revenue stream from contribution to the US Department of the Treasury, that might have been enough to make it a tax.

Re: endorsements, I'd have to chalk it up to the attorneys-at-bar. I recall how adamant a bank was back in the mid 90s about absolutely NOT making any changes to the format of checks --that is, if they printed them. They offer free check printing because its not likely that you'll go print your own. There are at least two ways to make something payable to order:


Pay to the order of...
or


Pay to ......................... or order

The attorneys probably suggested the former over the latter. With the latter (the 2nd one) there shouldnt be any need to do anything but "show ID". There'd be no need to endorse the 2nd at the drawer's bank, of course, the payee wanted to give an order. Of course, the same "Pay .. to the order of" verbiage pervades Quickbooks and perhaps almost every popular check printing or accounting software package on the planet. You're just not "supposed" to know there is any alternative because the conditioning and misleading called "education" is just "supposed" to work.

If you cross the Pacific to, say, New Zealand you dont see that kind of wording on checks. Instead you see something like..


Pay ...
The sum of...


http://ts1.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=1343257777324&id=4a186b938ffb66ce22167a9ff348028d

http://unipr.waikato.ac.nz/news/images/20080922MonicaFraser.jpg

jesse james
12-07-11, 10:34 PM
P.P.S. Above me in the shelf are the five years of the Roosevelt Administration from 1932-1936. And the full set is available to me at the federal repository. If you really wanted to outline what you are saying in detail about the implementation of the Income Tax that would be a great way to do it. For the April 15th Deadline though, you might have to go earlier by a few years (1861):



http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/6479/conventionextraordinary.jpg





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg0obxZmqrk
Dont know why April 15th is of any big deal here?
You Dave act as though this 37th congress session is a big deal.
I dont care what day they picked as a deadline to file as it doesnt matter. The matter and point was a majority of the American population didnt file until 1940.
And your previous post about shaving off twenty years and something about 4 other years.................what point are you trying to make here?
Your premise is that the mere use or having fiat in your pocket imposes the income tax by your very own words!
Well.................what does the reserve bank charter of 20 years have to do with anything?
The private federal reserve doesnt and cannot impose any taxes on Americans like the Social Security act does. Nor does the reserve act classify occupations as "employment" which the definition comes from Title 5.
So which is it Mr. Merrill?
Does or does not the reserve act with its "supposed" hidden fiat imposition cause taxation or not?....you cant have it both ways......or can you?
You know over at another site a quatloosers has chimed in saying you are legally a nutcase. Even showed the document stating you cannot be legally held accountable. basically it says nobody should take you word for anything. And from the looks of this you are waffling back and forth much like Hendrickson did and still does when confronted with facts that cause his theory to spiral down in a flaming crash.

allodial
12-08-11, 03:22 AM
I dunno where the notion of the FRB imposing a tax comes in. Perhaps the FRB cannot impose an income tax, but perhaps it or one or more banks can hold one or more persons as surety for paying its own taxes. One explanation with respect to U.S. income tax is that between the 60s and 70s corporates started looking for ways to dump their tax liability on their employees. (The W4 perhaps plays a role in this.) In the issue of endorsing private credit--or rather being a surety on an instrument imparted with private credit through some customary means --in the issue of that having a significance as to income tax, I suppose the effects might be different with an employer-employee type arrangement as compared with an company-contractor type relationship.

Also perhaps the difference between 1930s and 1940s and now is that even the silver dollars were removed from normal circulation. In any case, I don't recall any suggesting of the FRB imposing a tax. Having fiat money in your pocket imposes income tax? Hmm I maybe missed that notion being implied here. Employer-employee relationship and income tax seems to be what it was confined to.

David Merrill
12-08-11, 08:53 AM
If the SSA sold the revenue stream from contribution to the US Department of the Treasury, that might have been enough to make it a tax.

Re: endorsements, I'd have to chalk it up to the attorneys-at-bar. I recall how adamant a bank was back in the mid 90s about absolutely NOT making any changes to the format of checks --that is, if they printed them. They offer free check printing because its not likely that you'll go print your own. There are at least two ways to make something payable to order:


or



The attorneys probably suggested the former over the latter. With the latter (the 2nd one) there shouldnt be any need to do anything but "show ID". There'd be no need to endorse the 2nd at the drawer's bank, of course, the payee wanted to give an order. Of course, the same "Pay .. to the order of" verbiage pervades Quickbooks and perhaps almost every popular check printing or accounting software package on the planet. You're just not "supposed" to know there is any alternative because the conditioning and misleading called "education" is just "supposed" to work.

If you cross the Pacific to, say, New Zealand you dont see that kind of wording on checks. Instead you see something like..



http://ts1.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=1343257777324&id=4a186b938ffb66ce22167a9ff348028d

http://unipr.waikato.ac.nz/news/images/20080922MonicaFraser.jpg

Thank you for that Allodial! I am making some headway with that.


I dunno where the notion of the FRB imposing a tax comes in. Perhaps the FRB cannot impose an income tax, but perhaps it or one or more banks can hold one or more persons as surety for paying its own taxes. One explanation with respect to U.S. income tax is that between the 60s and 70s corporates started looking for ways to dump their tax liability on their employees. (The W4 perhaps plays a role in this.) In the issue of endorsing private credit--or rather being a surety on an instrument imparted with private credit through some customary means --in the issue of that having a significance as to income tax, I suppose the effects might be different with an employer-employee type arrangement as compared with an company-contractor type relationship.

Also perhaps the difference between 1930s and 1940s and now is that even the silver dollars were removed from normal circulation. In any case, I don't recall any suggesting of the FRB imposing a tax. Having fiat money in your pocket imposes income tax? Hmm I maybe missed that notion being implied here. Employer-employee relationship and income tax seems to be what it was confined to.

That is the significance of the Thirty-Seventh Congress alright! The implied trust about money became express - IN GOD WE TRUST - 1863.




Dont know why April 15th is of any big deal here?

I showed you, that was the date set in 1861 by Abraham LINCOLN.

You Dave act as though this 37th congress session is a big deal.

Yes. In the grand scheme of things America in a civil war enabling fiat is a big deal.

I dont care what day they picked as a deadline to file as it doesnt matter. The matter and point was a majority of the American population didnt file until 1940.

I already presumed that you are correct but you still have made no effort to convince me. I am not calling you a liar, just saying that you do not meet any rules of evidence with that assertion. I already agreed that it sounds right according to HITLER coming into power and forming a war chest for WWII.

And your previous post about shaving off twenty years and something about 4 other years.................what point are you trying to make here?

I made my point above. I would copy and paste my post from above simply to avoid your attorney-like trolling. You want me to paraphrase in a manner that is easier to debunk? No, thank you.

Your premise is that the mere use or having fiat in your pocket imposes the income tax by your very own words!
Well.................what does the reserve bank charter of 20 years have to do with anything?

I think you are joindering Allodial into my posts, but I don't think that is what he is saying. What I get is that as we form the New Trust of FDR's by endorsing the private credit with our salary checks we become the enforcement arm against ourselves. We become our own Taxpayer/IRS Agents. That is what I got from Allodial's posts. The IRS is just keeping the Record of our agreements (1040 Form).

The private federal reserve doesnt and cannot impose any taxes on Americans like the Social Security act does. Nor does the reserve act classify occupations as "employment" which the definition comes from Title 5.

I have the Fed Act (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B1EaV_bU7VImM2EzYjY5ZWItMDUxOC00OTViLWIwNzM tNGViZjJkZmIyMzYx&hl=en_US) and USC Title 5 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/) handy but will leave it to you to support that for us.

So which is it Mr. Merrill?

Does or does not the reserve act with its "supposed" hidden fiat imposition cause taxation or not?....you cant have it both ways......or can you?

I redeem lawful money. So your point is moot. I demand cash. I teach people how to redeem lawful money and they get full refunds of their withholdings and after careful contemplation by the IRS agents and IRS attorneys. The one more significant example was outstanding! Just recently the IRS backed off with this letter (http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/3425/irs11292011.jpg).

You know over at another site a quatloosers has chimed in saying you are legally a nutcase. Even showed the document stating you cannot be legally held accountable. basically it says nobody should take you word for anything. And from the looks of this you are waffling back and forth much like Hendrickson did and still does when confronted with facts that cause his theory to spiral down in a flaming crash.

I think you are fabricating that, my waffling. I edited my harsh comments about Quatlosers and their pathetic addiction on ridicule, before I read your post far enough to get that last paragraph. You make my point about that, in my opinion. You are a bored Quatloser. Like pointed out before by somebody else here I was moderated to the point that I became bored. Having to wait for my kind of fun, that threw off the timing so I was simply no longer entertained. If you need me back so badly then have Wserra lift my moderated status.

Your attack has not yet arisen to anything I will defend other than that the psychological evaluation of which you speak was by a State sock-puppet who was lying. I recorded the interview and put that sound track in a video that I share openly as a great lesson about record-forming and consent. The interview, according to fact never happened because he could not get me to sign the consent form. I am not going to buy into your distraction and trolling further than for you to Click Here (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImYzc2YmU2MjEtNzZlNC00ZTE3LWJmY WEtOGE4M2EzNDNlOTFm).




I would like to say that I am sorry you have become bored with Quatloos - but I am not. I wrote a thread early on about my being thick-skinned with you Quatlosers. Since members here are verifying remedy exists all the time now, I think that goes double for you. I enjoy the new troll here but if you start detracting from the entertainment and education values of this website I will deal with you appropriately.

David Merrill
12-08-11, 02:49 PM
P.S. By that last remark I mean only for you to stay focused on this:



The private federal reserve doesnt and cannot impose any taxes on Americans like the Social Security act does. Nor does the reserve act classify occupations as "employment" which the definition comes from Title 5.


I have the Fed Act (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B1EaV_bU7VImM2EzYjY5ZWItMDUxOC00OTViLWIwNzM tNGViZjJkZmIyMzYx&hl=en_US) and USC Title 5 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/) handy but will leave it to you to support that for us.


So which is it Mr. Merrill?


You must explain the premise clearly if you expect me to choose between an ultimatum. In other words if you want to try agitating me about my sanity and so forth, then maybe you will establish that you are coming from a proper finding of facts first please?

allodial
12-08-11, 07:38 PM
I think you are joindering Allodial into my posts, but I don't think that is what he is saying.

It appears that he is insinuating that you to have asserted such re: FRNs/Income Tax. However, it may be that he is using an "argument seeding" tactic typical of litigation attorneys or interrogators. The conversation is about eating eggs. Then the argument seed is "So you killed your cat with an egg? Don't you think that doing such a think is terrible?" Of course the response they're hoping for is: "I didn't kill my cat with an egg." So then from there its "So exactly what did you kill your cat with?"

http://img.thoughts.com/3a02ajr00o554tg.jpg

Trolls.

****

Re: sanity.

The interesting thing is that a psychologist's inability to distinguish imaginary things (i.e. "the State") from reality perhaps makes him/her ...insane.

P.S. Thinking about thinking is said to be neurotic behavior. A profession dedicated to thinking about thinking....would be neurotic, no?

David Merrill
12-08-11, 11:05 PM
Thank you Allodial;


That is a new diagram for me. Maybe it is the old "So you used to beat your wife tactic." tactic?

I knew it was not the one I am used to though. When I would make three great points at once then the rebuttal would be only on the weakest point and the two great points would seemingly fall by the wayside.

Weston White
01-02-12, 08:12 AM
Motla68,
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.

Hello, I would like to quickly comment on this issue, which is to say the "lock-in" process (or the 'LTR 2801C'), the IRS abuses purely under a 'color of law' as surely your payroll dept. could very readily provide the IRS your recent withholding history and as well the IRS most certainly has all of your prior tax filing on microfiche. Below is an excerpt from a notice I had sent to my payer last year:

Concerning 26 U.S.C., to date by way of my own research, I have been unable to locate any statutory authority directly empowering the IRS to issue its infamous “lock-in” letters as “single and zero” by proxy, which so being the case indicates that all such letters are in reality 'color of law' bootleg documents providing no binding legal obligation for enforcement and that all such notices are but contrived farces. The IRS has been granted only authority to implement procedures through regulations to establish for individuals their legitimate claim of allowances for deductions, exemption, etc. as so defined by statute, they have not been granted authority to restrict such rights from them (notwithstanding that they have also been granted authority to issues civil penalties upon those that are committing fraud with concern to such allowances, e.g., 26 U.S.C. § 7205).

i. The only regulatory statute I have located on this subject matter pertains to only authorizing such increases in withholdings at the employee’s request, see 26 U.S.C. 3402(i)(1) — ‘Changes in withholding’:

“The Secretary may by regulations provide for increases in the amount of withholding otherwise required under this section in cases where the employee requests such changes. …”
See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00003402----000-.html

ii. The only regulation concerning such notices/letters is found within 26 CFR Sec. 31.3402(f)(2)-1(g)(2)(i) — ‘Withholding exemption certificates’ (which (being merely a 'regulation') is superseded in context by the scope prescribed under statute) and is intended only to ensure that employees are claiming only what they are lawfully entitled to and not to be enforced as a venomous form of maximum withholding punishment (the IRS does none of the below, save for issuing the harrassing letter):

“Notice of the maximum number of withholding exemptions permitted--(i) Notice to employer. The IRS may notify the employer in writing that the employee is not entitled to claim a complete exemption from withholding or more than the maximum number of withholding exemptions specified by the IRS in the written notice. The notice will also specify the applicable marital status for purposes of calculating the required amount of withholding. The notice will specify the IRS office to be contacted for further information. The notice of maximum number of withholding exemptions permitted may be issued if--
(A) The IRS determines that a copy of a withholding exemption Certificate submitted under paragraph (g)(1) [“An employer must submit to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) a copy of any currently effective withholding exemption certificate as directed in a written notice to the employer from the IRS or as directed in published guidance.”] of this section or otherwise provided to the IRS contains a materially incorrect statement or determines, after a request to the employee for verification of the statements on the certificate, that the IRS lacks sufficient information to determine if the certificate is correct.
(B) The IRS otherwise determines that the employee is not entitled to claim a complete exemption from withholding and is not entitled to claim more than a specified number of withholding exemptions.
…”
See: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2010/aprqtr/26cfr31.3402(f)(2)-1.htm

jesse james
01-06-12, 04:12 AM
Hello, I would like to quickly comment on this issue, which is to say the "lock-in" process (or the 'LTR 2801C'), the IRS abuses purely under a 'color of law' as surely your payroll dept. could very readily provide the IRS your recent withholding history and as well the IRS most certainly has all of your prior tax filing on microfiche. Below is an excerpt from a notice I had sent to my payer last year:

Concerning 26 U.S.C., to date by way of my own research, I have been unable to locate any statutory authority directly empowering the IRS to issue its infamous “lock-in” letters as “single and zero” by proxy, which so being the case indicates that all such letters are in reality 'color of law' bootleg documents providing no binding legal obligation for enforcement and that all such notices are but contrived farces. The IRS has been granted only authority to implement procedures through regulations to establish for individuals their legitimate claim of allowances for deductions, exemption, etc. as so defined by statute, they have not been granted authority to restrict such rights from them (notwithstanding that they have also been granted authority to issues civil penalties upon those that are committing fraud with concern to such allowances, e.g., 26 U.S.C. § 7205).

i. The only regulatory statute I have located on this subject matter pertains to only authorizing such increases in withholdings at the employee’s request, see 26 U.S.C. 3402(i)(1) — ‘Changes in withholding’:

“The Secretary may by regulations provide for increases in the amount of withholding otherwise required under this section in cases where the employee requests such changes. …”
See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00003402----000-.html

ii. The only regulation concerning such notices/letters is found within 26 CFR Sec. 31.3402(f)(2)-1(g)(2)(i) — ‘Withholding exemption certificates’ (which (being merely a 'regulation') is superseded in context by the scope prescribed under statute) and is intended only to ensure that employees are claiming only what they are lawfully entitled to and not to be enforced as a venomous form of maximum withholding punishment (the IRS does none of the below, save for issuing the harrassing letter):

“Notice of the maximum number of withholding exemptions permitted--(i) Notice to employer. The IRS may notify the employer in writing that the employee is not entitled to claim a complete exemption from withholding or more than the maximum number of withholding exemptions specified by the IRS in the written notice. The notice will also specify the applicable marital status for purposes of calculating the required amount of withholding. The notice will specify the IRS office to be contacted for further information. The notice of maximum number of withholding exemptions permitted may be issued if--
(A) The IRS determines that a copy of a withholding exemption Certificate submitted under paragraph (g)(1) [“An employer must submit to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) a copy of any currently effective withholding exemption certificate as directed in a written notice to the employer from the IRS or as directed in published guidance.”] of this section or otherwise provided to the IRS contains a materially incorrect statement or determines, after a request to the employee for verification of the statements on the certificate, that the IRS lacks sufficient information to determine if the certificate is correct.
(B) The IRS otherwise determines that the employee is not entitled to claim a complete exemption from withholding and is not entitled to claim more than a specified number of withholding exemptions.
…”
See: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2010/aprqtr/26cfr31.3402(f)(2)-1.htm
Hey there Weston!
Its been a long time since we talked over at your site.
Just last week i tried to log in and couldnt remember my password.

To reply to your post..................read regulation 26cfr 1-1.1 for the reason you think the IRS cant slap a lock in letter.
The key to this is your consent to being their subject.......................the federal "US citizen".
US citizens are regulated and taxed heavily.......................the People are not!

Chex
01-06-12, 04:51 AM
Thank You Jessie...Contract (http://www.google.com/search?q=14th+amendment+definition+for+kids&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=) ...................Corporate Info (http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/our_story/Corporate_Info.html)

Under the notion of "pre-existing duties," if either the promisor or the promisee already had a legal obligation to render such payment, it cannot be seen as consideration in the legal sense.

In contract law in the United States (http://www.google.com/search?q=the+united+states+is+not+a+country&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us%3AIE-SearchBox&biw=1272&bih=561&source=hp&q=the+united+states+is+a+corporation&pbx=1&oq=the+united+states+is+a+&aq=1&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_sm=c&gs_upl=17172l20781l0l23297l15l12l0l0l0l9l922l4562l 2-4.4.3.0.1l12l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=dc9072f4d1d34f4c), the pre-existing duty rule is a legal concept relating to when the performance of a legal duty is classified as consideration.

Generally, performing a legal duty (http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/legal-duty.htm)which is already owed under a contract does not constitute consideration, unless that duty is unclear or honestly disputed.

That is, once a party agrees to do something under a contract (http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/contract.htm), that party cannot change the terms without consideration and expect the new terms to be enforceable.

This is expressed as the legal duty (http://www.google.com/search?q=legal+duty+definition&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=#hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&q=legal+duty&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=nnwGT46INsKYiQL45-BM&ved=0CCsQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=a264c4da15b5e6be&biw=1272&bih=533)rule, and usually occurs in one of three different ways: Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-existing_duty_rule)

jesse james
01-07-12, 01:27 AM
Thank You Jessie...Contract (http://www.google.com/search?q=14th+amendment+definition+for+kids&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=) ...................Corporate Info (http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/our_story/Corporate_Info.html)

Under the notion of "pre-existing duties," if either the promisor or the promisee already had a legal obligation to render such payment, it cannot be seen as consideration in the legal sense.

In contract law in the United States (http://www.google.com/search?q=the+united+states+is+not+a+country&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us%3AIE-SearchBox&biw=1272&bih=561&source=hp&q=the+united+states+is+a+corporation&pbx=1&oq=the+united+states+is+a+&aq=1&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_sm=c&gs_upl=17172l20781l0l23297l15l12l0l0l0l9l922l4562l 2-4.4.3.0.1l12l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=dc9072f4d1d34f4c), the pre-existing duty rule is a legal concept relating to when the performance of a legal duty is classified as consideration.

Generally, performing a legal duty (http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/legal-duty.htm)which is already owed under a contract does not constitute consideration, unless that duty is unclear or honestly disputed.

That is, once a party agrees to do something under a contract (http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/contract.htm), that party cannot change the terms without consideration and expect the new terms to be enforceable.

This is expressed as the legal duty (http://www.google.com/search?q=legal+duty+definition&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=#hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&q=legal+duty&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=nnwGT46INsKYiQL45-BM&ved=0CCsQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=a264c4da15b5e6be&biw=1272&bih=533)rule, and usually occurs in one of three different ways: Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-existing_duty_rule)
Well since you bring up "duties" somewhere on the Social Security website one condition in participating is paying all duties (taxes) associated with participating in SS.
Both the impositions found at 26usc 3402 and 26usc 3101 are "pre-existing duties" to pay the taxes associated with participating in Social Security.
Has nothing at all to do with lawful money or fiat money.

Treefarmer
01-08-12, 05:10 AM
Well since you bring up "duties" somewhere on the Social Security website one condition in participating is paying all duties (taxes) associated with participating in SS.
Both the impositions found at 26usc 3402 and 26usc 3101 are "pre-existing duties" to pay the taxes associated with participating in Social Security.
Has nothing at all to do with lawful money or fiat money.

Then why is there a "federal income tax" and a separate "FICA" tax and a "Medicare tax" listed on a W-2 form?
Are you saying that all three are Social Security taxes, but split up into three different categories?
If so, why are they split up?

Weston White
01-08-12, 07:50 AM
Are those not all but hidden taxes anyway? With them all going directly into a general fund with nothing being earmarked for a specific purpose; just the same as "Obamacare", yet another pointless tax hike at 2.5/5-percent (or more) annually. With the federal government reserving the right to terminate such entitlement programs at anytime they see fit, which subsequently could result in the forfeiture of any future benefits in those programs or in greatly reduced benefits from such entitlements, dependent upon nothing but the generosity of whoever is holding the House at the time.

Hbert997
01-08-12, 08:15 AM
Well since you bring up "duties" somewhere on the Social Security website one condition in participating is paying all duties (taxes) associated with participating in SS.
Both the impositions found at 26usc 3402 and 26usc 3101 are "pre-existing duties" to pay the taxes associated with participating in Social Security.
Has nothing at all to do with lawful money or fiat money.

What jesse is describing (correctly, by the way!) is explained very well right here:

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citizenship/citizenshipdiagrams.pdf

Hbert

shikamaru
01-08-12, 01:08 PM
Then why is there a "federal income tax" and a separate "FICA" tax and a "Medicare tax" listed on a W-2 form?
Are you saying that all three are Social Security taxes, but split up into three different categories?
If so, why are they split up?

Federal income tax is separate from the other two.

FICA has to do with SS.
Medicare has to do with social insurance .... interesting.

If Medicare is a social insurance program ... the tax you pay is your premium in contribution to the program....

Interestingly enough, France and Canada also have Medicare or some form of social insurance program. I have a hunch this may be international in scope. If this is the case, then there are greater implications not spoken ....

Insurance is squarely in the realm of Admiralty/Maritime law.

It is not unlawful for government to tax a benefit given (per the Supreme Court). I've seen this in one of the Supreme Court cases on Social Security. I'm guessing it is Flemming v. Nestor (1960), but don't quote me on it.

If you accept a benefit from government, expect there to be a tax.
If you want to reduce your exposure to taxes, decline the benefits :).
Cease to be a beneficiary.

jesse james
01-09-12, 03:12 AM
Federal income tax is separate from the other two.

FICA has to do with SS.
Medicare has to do with social insurance .... interesting.

If Medicare is a social insurance program ... the tax you pay is your premium in contribution to the program....

Interestingly enough, France and Canada also have Medicare or some form of social insurance program. I have a hunch this may be international in scope. If this is the case, then there are greater implications not spoken ....

Insurance is squarely in the realm of Admiralty/Maritime law.

It is not unlawful for government to tax a benefit given (per the Supreme Court). I've seen this in one of the Supreme Court cases on Social Security. I'm guessing it is Flemming v. Nestor (1960), but don't quote me on it.

If you accept a benefit from government, expect there to be a tax.
If you want to reduce your exposure to taxes, decline the benefits :).
Cease to be a beneficiary.
No its not unlawful for the government to tax a benefit................especialy a benefit that comes directly and administered from the government itself.
Social Security is a federal government benefit program that has no mandatory participation clause in it whatsoever............its all voluntary.
And its voluntary to participate because in doing so you proclaim under penalty of perjury to being a 14th amendment federal "US citizen" having but a scant Bill of Right protections of the Constitution.
If they would have such a mandatory participation clause in the benefit Act it would be in violation of the US Constitution on many different levels.
Do you think they could force every American to participate if this mandatory participation labels you a second class citizen that has a little Bill of Rights?
This fight against taxation boils down to "RIGHTS" not money!

Chex
01-09-12, 04:28 PM
The Right of Publicity is a consent principle legal definition called fiduciary duty the highest standard of care at either equity or law.

A fiduciary (abbreviation fid) is expected to be extremely loyal to the person to whom he owes the duty (the "principal"): he must not put his personal interests before the duty, and must not profit from his position {for who’s position? the Consent of the Governed} as a fiduciary, unless the principal consents.

The Right of publicity means the right of an individual to control any commercial use of his/her name, image, or some other aspects of one's identity.

In the U.S., it is a state law-based right. In the U.S., right of publicity is enforced through state law.

32-36-1-7. Right of publicity, The recognition of the right varies from state to state.

Some states have clearly provided this right by way of statute. States which do not have specific legislation relating to the right to publicity recognize the right by way of common law.

It is generally considered a property right rather than a personal right.

So the right of publicity is descendible to the person's heirs after their death. It’s a fignet legal definition.

In the United States, the Right of Publicity is a state-based right, and therefore each state must determine if and how it will recognize the Right.

The Right of Publicity is a rapidly-evolving right with great increase in reported cases in the United States and worldwide. The right of publicity is also termed as publicity rights or personality rights.

It’s all in the nature of legal estate in land not to be confused with the carrot theory from the inferior parrot theory.

"Right of publicity" means a personality's property interest in the personality's:

If you believe you're land is you're body wouldn’t you consider it a property right and all that's included rather than a personal right for the reason of "I am the alpha and the omega created in the image of YHWH."

JohnnyCash
01-09-12, 05:00 PM
The astute reader may notice Jesse has not indicated whether he himself is a "US Citizen," if he participates in Social Security, and if not, how he did it.

Nor does he explain how I can work making plenty of lawful money, then deposit that (http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8392/lmreceipt.jpg) into a checking account started with the Social Security number the government sent me, and yet not pay a dime in Federal Income Tax, Social Security, nor Medicare tax, for the past four years (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?461-Social-Security-Number&p=5059&viewfull=1#post5059).

shikamaru
01-09-12, 05:44 PM
And its voluntary to participate because in doing so you proclaim under penalty of perjury to being a 14th amendment federal "US citizen" having but a scant Bill of Right protections of the Constitution.
If they would have such a mandatory participation clause in the benefit Act it would be in violation of the US Constitution on many different levels.
Do you think they could force every American to participate if this mandatory participation labels you a second class citizen that has a little Bill of Rights?

The power to contract used against a registrant.



This fight against taxation boils down to "RIGHTS" not money!

I see it as another scheme of servitude predicated on benefits for duties.

jesse james
01-10-12, 12:32 AM
The astute reader may notice Jesse has not indicated whether he himself is a "US Citizen," if he participates in Social Security, and if not, how he did it.

Nor does he explain how I can work making plenty of lawful money, then deposit that (http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8392/lmreceipt.jpg) into a checking account started with the Social Security number the government sent me, and yet not pay a dime in Federal Income Tax, Social Security, nor Medicare tax, for the past four years (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?461-Social-Security-Number&p=5059&viewfull=1#post5059).
I'm sure if you had a shred of decency you'd tell them the truth that you control the reporting from your multiple bussinesses.
Fellow forum members JohnnyCash here basically pays himself and opts from reporting. He admitted to this on another forum.
I highly doubt Johnny you are even remotely successful as you say you are if you were paid from entity you had no control of reporting to the SSA.
Keep propping yourself up high and mighty Johnny as the fall, when it catches up, is just as mighty!
I outlined my success on that other forum quite nicely for you so stop bullshitting everyone here as if you are some sort of authority.
I relied on understanding fully how SS works and knew exactly what was needed to be done to secure my Rights of not participating which stopped all reporting and withholding.........................you know this Johnny very well!
So why the bullshit?

Also Johnny, thanks for showing proof with your SS statement that you are only successful because the SSA doesnt show any "income" reported.
You know damn well all IRS data comes from the SSA......................I shown you that regulation which you had no clue about!
No reported income means, or should mean, no retaliation from the IRS.
Lets hope no idiot data entry IRS goon audits your businesses and looks at you like they do drug dealers who also dont show any "income", but yet have large amounts of $$$ transactions in a bank account.
You think you are so smart, but yet your ego shows everyone here how stupid you are by showing these documents that most likely are gonna get you audited and caught.......unless of course you know how to defend yourself against DoJ which we discussed, or I tried discussing with you a while back, but with no avail.
Really should try to control your ego........its the same thing that brought down lucifer from a most highly earned position with the Father to being sentenced to be destroyed, as in will no longer exist, by the Father.

David Merrill
01-10-12, 01:54 AM
The astute reader may notice Jesse has not indicated whether he himself is a "US Citizen," if he participates in Social Security, and if not, how he did it.

Nor does he explain how I can work making plenty of lawful money, then deposit that (http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8392/lmreceipt.jpg) into a checking account started with the Social Security number the government sent me, and yet not pay a dime in Federal Income Tax, Social Security, nor Medicare tax, for the past four years (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?461-Social-Security-Number&p=5059&viewfull=1#post5059).

I like your link to the large transaction with the Redeemed stamp. Thank you for sharing.

JohnnyCash
01-10-12, 04:54 PM
You're welcome David.

To the quatloser (Minister of Perception):
HA! I imagine you behaving similar when you lost at checkers as a child. You're comical with the ranting, word-twisting & fearmongering. To put it another way, I don't believe you Jesse. You claim to have escaped Social Security participation but if so, you must not have explained it clearly; it doesn't stick with me.

Yes, I work for myself; been quite clear about that. Everyone has a right to work, trade and contract (or not) with whomever they wish. I prefer not to contract with clients who issue info reports that create the presumption of statutory INCOME, to the SSA. My lawful money in exchange for work is not statutory income. I think you're mistaken that ".. all IRS data comes from the SSA." You know that you can't establish a bank account without a SSN or TIN. This way any endorsed credit from the (private) Federal Reserve can be tracked. Will the account-holder use the public side or the private side? Will he/she be depositing money in "one of the new forms" that Congress & FDR hoodwinked the nation into?

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/4556/governmentbondslarge.jpg

As for bovine excrement, I'll let the reader determine who's spreading it. As for the DoJ/IRS, you've threatened me with a good time for what... 3 years now? Bring it on! I'm not afraid of you or the IRS; the law is on my side.
Yes the ego is powerful, and dangerous if not harnessed. I use mine to generate bitcoin (http://bitcoinmedia.com/the-good-wife-bitcoin-for-dummies-promo/) :D

And you J, are running out of time. You must choose a side, there will be no neutral. Continue in your oppression, or join the pebblepeople (http://www.bos.frb.org/education/pubs/wishes.pdf) in our dreams of freedom.

jesse james
01-10-12, 11:54 PM
You're welcome David.

To the quatloser (Minister of Perception):
HA! I imagine you behaving similar when you lost at checkers as a child. You're comical with the ranting, word-twisting & fearmongering. (You may think its fearmongering and word-twisting when logic and common sense are used) To put it another way, I don't believe you Jesse. (we all know this but you arent beleivable) You claim to have escaped Social Security participation but if so, you must not have explained it clearly; it doesn't stick with me. (it doesnt stick with you because you havent exercised logic and common sense with the issue)
Yes, I work for myself; been quite clear about that. (No, no you havent been clear about that. It took quite a few posts to get it out of you and yet you still parade yourself around as if you are successful, but the truth is, you are only successful because you control the reporting which isnt saying much about your CtC returns or Merrills premise) Everyone has a right to work, trade and contract (or not) with whomever they wish. I prefer not to contract with clients who issue info reports that create the presumption of statutory INCOME, to the SSA. ( See that wasnt hard to be honest and admit the truth that its the lack of reporting that has gotten you this far) My lawful money in exchange for work is not statutory income. ("income" is defined in the IRC which the 1# on that list is "services" from what ever source. Social Security defines "service" as the 3121(a) "wages" you get paid in respect to SS "employment". So if you are not being reporting to the SSA, like you having control of such reporting, then the IRS has nothing reported as "income" in their system of records. So you are premature to say you are successful. I think you're mistaken that ".. all IRS data comes from the SSA." (no I have not mistaken the regulation one bit................its a bonified black and white regulation. I think its you who doesnt want to see the truth of the regulation which you bury your head in the sand to. Remember me asking you numberous times to be honest with yourself?) You know that you can't establish a bank account without a SSN or TIN. (banks use the number for two reasons.........reporting interest and identification......thats it nothing else) This way any endorsed credit from the (private) Federal Reserve can be tracked. (only interest from an interest bearing account is tracked. Dont fool yourself!) Will the account-holder use the public side or the private side? Will he/she be depositing money in "one of the new forms" that Congress & FDR hoodwinked the nation into?

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/4556/governmentbondslarge.jpg

As for bovine excrement, I'll let the reader determine who's spreading it. As for the DoJ/IRS, you've threatened me with a good time for what... 3 years now? Bring it on! I'm not afraid of you or the IRS; the law is on my side. (you really are paranoid arent you.........I'm not who you would like me to be. I was the 28th person to register to losthorizons under "hippy". Some might remember me but most of the good thinkers and questioners have been banned from LH because to much information was coming to light that the CtC thesis was very much falling apart. Pete couldnt have that so he banned a lot of people who questioned him.)Yes the ego is powerful, and dangerous if not harnessed. I use mine to generate bitcoin (http://bitcoinmedia.com/the-good-wife-bitcoin-for-dummies-promo/) :D

And you J, are running out of time. You must choose a side, there will be no neutral. Continue in your oppression, or join the pebblepeople (http://www.bos.frb.org/education/pubs/wishes.pdf) in our dreams of freedom.


.............................

JohnnyCash
01-11-12, 02:53 AM
Thank you for admitting I've been successful jesse, and until you post some documentation I'll continue to assume you're still a bankster slave*. I read Cracking the Code (http://losthorizons.com/CtCforFree.pdf) in 2008 and learned the tax code was smoke & mirrors. The IRC doesn't say what it purports to say. The federal income tax is an excise on federal privilege. I then learned about our fraudulent monetary system. I discovered Planet Merrill and learned that one of the two capacities of our currency carries an obligation for a return of income - the income tax excise. I don't have a Social Security number yet I used the SSN mailed to me to establish a bank account; how can that be jesse? My bank knows full well how much money I transact, and it's a simple matter for DoJ/IRS to get it too. if I hadn't started redeeming lawful money pursuant to Title 12 USC 411, no doubt I'd be staring down Auntie IRiS' full arsenal of CP letters, SFRs, & liens by now. But I haven't. They got nothing. And you got nothing.

And you're wrong about income; gross income is defined in the IRC not income. "The general term "income" is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code" so says the US Supreme Court, US v. Ballard, 535 f2d 400, 404 (1976)

You're sunk J, washed up, lost. Your attempts to discredit me & muddy the waters have failed. Epic fail. And your sacred little tax scam is about to collapse along with the monetary system too. Did you think it was seamless? Did you think a handful of quatlosers could stem the rising tide of freedom? Our side has infiltrated yours. They walk among you. All will be revealed.

* technically, I'd say you're a bankster minion, since you work for the elite to enslave your own kin.

Brian
01-11-12, 05:06 AM
The federal income tax is an excise on federal privilege.

JC; would amending that statement to something along these lines fit "more better"?

At the time the money in question was earned was I performing a function of, or acting as an agent of, in a contract with, or being payed by the Government? What evidence do you have that I have acted in any of these capacities knowingly?

JohnnyCash
01-11-12, 08:52 PM
Assuming you meant the following, then Yes. That works too.

"At the time the lawful money in question was earned, I was not performing a function of, acting as agent of, in contract with, a Government agency...."