Page 2 of 36 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 357

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

  1. #11
    jesse james
    Guest
    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.
    Last edited by jesse james; 11-10-11 at 10:08 PM.

  2. #12
    JohnnyCash
    Guest
    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 ...



    Keep playing?
    Last edited by JohnnyCash; 03-29-12 at 01:22 AM.

  3. #13
    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,
    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.
    Last edited by motla68; 11-11-11 at 12:12 AM.

  4. #14
    jesse james
    Guest
    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.
    Last edited by jesse james; 11-11-11 at 12:49 AM.

  5. #15
    JohnnyCash
    Guest
    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...
    Quote Originally Posted by jesse james View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by jesse james View Post
    Thank you for agreeing with me.
    Incorrect. We do not agree with you nor your practice at the art of deception. Typical Famspear.

    Quote Originally Posted by jesse james View Post
    .. 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?

    Quote Originally Posted by jesse james View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by jesse james View Post
    .. 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.

  6. #16
    Senior Member Brian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Earth, Alpha Quadrant.
    Posts
    142
    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.

  7. #17
    jesse james
    Guest
    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.
    Last edited by jesse james; 11-11-11 at 02:17 PM.

  8. #18
    stoneFree
    Guest
    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 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 with his take on Wall St.
    Last edited by stoneFree; 11-11-11 at 03:23 PM.

  9. #19
    jesse james
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by stoneFree View Post
    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 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 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.

  10. #20
    stoneFree
    Guest
    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.

Posting Permissions

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