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

[Treefarmer]

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]

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]

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/...797939,00.html

As you may know, he's been complicit in hiding funds for Barack & Mochelle:
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/727...u7r388ttbdgmjr

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]

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/...797939,00.html

As you may know, he's been complicit in hiding funds for Barack & Mochelle:
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/727...u7r388ttbdgmjr

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]

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]

careful Shikamaru, he gets a little testy when shown to be a liar.

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/4556/...bondslarge.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]

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.

[motla68]

careful Shikamaru, he gets a little testy when shown to be a liar.

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/4556/...bondslarge.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/...es_e_bonds.htm

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

[jesse james]

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]

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?