Quote Originally Posted by jesse james View Post
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.

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.