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

[JohnnyCash]

'smatter J? Lost your connection to Iowa? I was hoping you'd return for more humiliation.

And I wanted to address your suggestion that I'm only successful because of no SSA reporting. If this were true, it suggests a fairly easy route out of taxation. One could simply stop working for employers & clients that issue W2s and 1099s. In fact wouldn't employees flock to the first company that withheld no taxes and issued no W2s? Of course. But there is another avenue of reporting you're overlooking, and it's brought down many criminals when authorities couldn't find enough other evidence to convict. BANKS.

He doesn't have it exactly right but here's a little piece by George Mercier that helped me understand how BANKS fit into TAXATION:

So what happens during these Willful Failure to File trials is that:

1. The Intelligence Division of the IRS surveys the local banks in the vicinity of the tax protester, and obtains copies of the protester's signature card and financial transactions statements from the bank.

2. At the time the U.S. Attorney requests the Judge to sign the Summons, the Judge has been presented with your bank account information. So now during the prosecution the Federal Judge is sitting up there on the bench with your agreement with the King in front of him while the tax protester argues:

"Well, Judge, the Fourth Amendment says..."
"Judge, the Fifth Amendment says I don't gotta..."

Are you beginning to see why the Judge is prone to experience frustration and blurt out "the Constitution does not apply here!"?

Meanwhile, the Judge is ignoring all Constitutionally related arguments and denying all motions.

If you would go back to your bank and ask the manager to show you your signature card again, in small print you will see the words:

"The undersigned hereby agrees to abide by all of the Rules of this Bank."

Have you ever asked to see a copy of the bank rules? If you have, you will read and find out that you agreed to abide by all of the administrative rulings of the Secretary of the Treasury, among many other things.

What is really happening in these Willful Failure to File prosecutions is that the Judge is operating on the penal clause to a civil contract. And since you have agreed to be bound by Title 26, what difference does it make whether or not Title 26 was ever enacted by the Congress? A contract does not have to be enacted by Congress -- in whole or in part -- in order to make it enforceable.

As for the actual taxation itself, what happens is that the King creates a "juristic personality" at the time you open your bank account. And it is that juristic personality (its income and assets) that the King's Agents are "excising" back to the King. But in any event, the taxing power of the Congress attaches by contract or use of the King's property. The Congress does not have the jurisdiction to use the police powers to raise revenue.

That is the proper way (the ideal Alice in Wonderland way actually) to collect taxes, and that is the procedure by which Federal Judges are enforcing the law -- not by ruling over gestapo Star Chambers.
http://www.14th-amendment.com/Miscel...ge_Mercier.htm

As many NON-taxpayers have bank accounts, we now know it takes more than just having a bank account to create a liability. The law (and even the currency itself) makes a distinction between lawful money & legal tender. David Merrill & company have shown that difference matters when it comes to income tax liability. There must be a way around an excise, and the saving to suitors clause required that remedy be written into the Federal Reserve Act. And there it is in section 16 "They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at ... any Federal Reserve bank."

I redeem lawful money, J. That's what I deposit in the bank accounts I use. That's why I've been a successful NON-taxpayer for over four years. It's game over J. You've lost. Time for you to end the deception game & come clean.

[jesse james]

'smatter J? Lost your connection to Iowa? I was hoping you'd return for more humiliation.

And I wanted to address your suggestion that I'm only successful because of no SSA reporting. If this were true, it suggests a fairly easy route out of taxation. One could simply stop working for employers & clients that issue W2s and 1099s. In fact wouldn't employees flock to the first company that withheld no taxes and issued no W2s? Of course. But there is another avenue of reporting you're overlooking, and it's brought down many criminals when authorities couldn't find enough other evidence to convict. BANKS.

He doesn't have it exactly right but here's a little piece by George Mercier that helped me understand how BANKS fit into TAXATION:

As many NON-taxpayers have bank accounts, we now know it takes more than just having a bank account to create a liability. The law (and even the currency itself) makes a distinction between lawful money & legal tender. David Merrill & company have shown that difference matters when it comes to income tax liability. There must be a way around an excise, and the saving to suitors clause required that remedy be written into the Federal Reserve Act. And there it is in section 16 "They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at ... any Federal Reserve bank."

I redeem lawful money, J. That's what I deposit in the bank accounts I use. That's why I've been a successful NON-taxpayer for over four years. It's game over J. You've lost. Time for you to end the deception game & come clean.

Your logic is wrong.............you are only finding what you want to hear and taking it out of context to fit your excuse.
You'll find the excise thats the "privilege" at 26USC 3111. 3111 specifically tells you what the excise is and thats someone participating in Social Security whos earning 3121(a) "wages" in respect to 3121(b) "employment".

(a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on every employer an excise tax, with respect to having individuals in his employ, equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 3121(a)) paid by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121(b))

Use some logic!
Logic says if the employer is taxed an excise tax for having an employee earning 3121(a) "wages" in respect to 3121(b) "employment" then the act of participating in Social Security by the employee is an excise itself.
Before Social Security was enacted was working for someone an "excise". Since when was working for a living considered a "privilege"?

Section 16 of the reserve act has nothing at all to do with the imposition........we went over this with our discussion of you fitting the medical description of "delusional".
The imposition is located in the Social Security statutes then drips into chapter 24 under 3401(a) "wages" to clue the astute thinker in comprehending what going on.

[JohnnyCash]

HA! Very funny jesse. It seems you don't like to be shown you're wrong. You know, many here have far surpassed my four-year record of success against bankster theft. They're just not as "in-your-face" about it as I am. As you are the internet's most prolific supporter of misapplied taxation (under multiple usernames) I rather enjoy it.

Social Security is an optional tax. It's also a very bad investment. I no longer participate. I don't have a Social Security number. See here.

You've been shown to be a repeated liar, Jesse. To my thinking a psychopathic liar. All that remains is to identify which type: Identifying Different Psychopaths

[Binbokusai Yagyuu]

' There must be a way around an excise (tax).

How might You have come to that conclusion .... ???

I pay an Excise Tax to the Federal Gov't on say, Tires, and Alcohol ...
there is " no way around " ...

why would the taxation we are speaking of here be different ..??

bye the bye ..
I met George Mercier before his death
careful how much credence you give to his legal "opinions", as that is exactly what they were

George himself, was a borderline nut case
read some of his Court filings ..

[JohnnyCash]

Jay? posing as an Asian now? Yes, many items are excised. You can get around the liquor tax by brewing your own or befriending a winemaker. Smokers can grow tobacco or roll their own. Likewise, the elite bankers couldn't excise the currency and require everyone to use it. Legally, an option had to be allowed. Lawful money is your excise-free option out of central banking enslavement. Of course this currency scam wasn't setup overnight, it happened over time by slow degrees. And thanks for all the clues.

Quatloo - a fictional currency
Federal Reserve note - a fictional currency

And please continue. This thread is developing into a Planet Merrill for Dummies.

[Binbokusai Yagyuu]

. You can get around the liquor tax by brewing your own or befriending a winemaker. Smokers can grow tobacco or roll their own.

Likewise, the elite bankers couldn't excise the currency and require everyone to use it. Legally, an option had to be allowed. .[/I]

I will continue by asking you to make sense out of your incongruous statements ...

what might be the Statutory Remedy.... in " rolling your own " .. ???

[JohnnyCash]

And I will continue by asking if you'd like me to take a poll?

Who here thinks Binbokusai is quatloser jesse?

Who here is the liar?

http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/8...deemable20.pdf

[shikamaru]

I will continue by asking you to make sense out of your incongruous statements ...

what might be the Statutory Remedy.... in " rolling your own " .. ???

What JohnnyCash has stated is correct. If you produce your own stuff, this avoids the stream of commerce. This is tax avoidance and not tax evasion.

If you are buying, selling, or trading using FRNs or presumed to be operating in the public interest, expect government to demand their cut.

If you "roll your own" its without statute law. Not everything falls under statute.

In fact, many bring themselves under statutes by their own actions.

Many times remedy can be found by avoidance.

[Binbokusai Yagyuu]

You have misunderstood my presupposition, Shik ...

Our friend Johnny has stated " Likewise, the elite bankers couldn't excise the currency and require everyone to use it. Legally, an option had to be allowed

therefore >>


The principle of legality is the legal ideal that requires all law to be clear, ascertainable and non-retrospective. It requires decision makers to resolve disputes by applying legal rules that have been declared beforehand, and not to alter the legal situation retrospectively by discretionary departures from established law. It is closely related to legal formalism and the rule of law and can be traced from the writings of Feuerbach, Dicey and Montesquieu.

There are no " Formal Rules " for avoidance, it is not a Statutory Answer as regards " Legally, an option had to be allowed "

[shikamaru]

You have misunderstood my presupposition, Shik ...

Our friend Johnny has stated " Likewise, the elite bankers couldn't excise the currency and require everyone to use it. Legally, an option had to be allowed

therefore >>


The principle of legality is the legal ideal that requires all law to be clear, ascertainable and non-retrospective. It requires decision makers to resolve disputes by applying legal rules that have been declared beforehand, and not to alter the legal situation retrospectively by discretionary departures from established law. It is closely related to legal formalism and the rule of law and can be traced from the writings of Feuerbach, Dicey and Montesquieu.

There are no " Formal Rules " for avoidance, it is not a Statutory Answer as regards " Legally, an option had to be allowed "

Apologies.