Page 1 of 36 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 357

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

  1. #1
    jesse james
    Guest

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

    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.
    Last edited by jesse james; 11-10-11 at 01:56 AM.

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by jesse james View Post
    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 and if you want, watch my video about it.



    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.

  3. #3
    Senior Member motla68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Within the confines of my own skin.
    Posts
    752
    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.
    Last edited by motla68; 11-10-11 at 03:22 AM.

  4. #4
    jesse james
    Guest
    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.

  5. #5
    JohnnyCash
    Guest
    Welcome "Jesse"
    Yes, we have had lengthy conversations over at FreedomWatch, 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.

  6. #6
    Senior Member motla68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Within the confines of my own skin.
    Posts
    752
    Quote Originally Posted by jesse james View Post
    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;

    Name:  w4-LD-sani.jpg
Views: 1474
Size:  58.6 KBName:  statement-LD-sani.jpg
Views: 1443
Size:  63.0 KB

  7. #7
    jesse james
    Guest
    I put you on ignore johny cash.

  8. #8
    jesse james
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by motla68 View Post
    Please see attachments as an option;

    Name:  w4-LD-sani.jpg
Views: 1474
Size:  58.6 KBName:  statement-LD-sani.jpg
Views: 1443
Size:  63.0 KB
    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.
    Last edited by jesse james; 11-10-11 at 06:51 PM.

  9. #9
    JohnnyCash
    Guest
    HA! Remember over at FreedomWatch 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/showt...ted=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 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?

  10. #10
    Senior Member motla68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Within the confines of my own skin.
    Posts
    752
    Quote Originally Posted by jesse james View Post
    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.
    Last edited by motla68; 11-10-11 at 09:50 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •