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

[David Merrill]

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/showt...ull=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.

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]

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.
Federal Reserve Act - Remedy.




To read the article alone Click Here.

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]

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 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.

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:

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.

[David Merrill]

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):

[allodial]

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...

[jesse james]

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):

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]

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]

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..

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 and USC Title 5 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.

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.

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]

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 and USC Title 5 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]

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?"



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?