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

[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...

[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]

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?

[David Merrill]

Thank you Allodial;


That is a new diagram for me. Maybe it is the old "So you used to beat your wife tactic." tactic?

I knew it was not the one I am used to though. When I would make three great points at once then the rebuttal would be only on the weakest point and the two great points would seemingly fall by the wayside.

[Goldi]

jesse james, have you reviewed the thread called "exactly what does the IRS agent think?" on this forum?

[jesse james]

jesse james, have you reviewed the thread called "exactly what does the IRS agent think?" on this forum?

No, I dont give any credence to this site at all. Not when the sites premise is wrong.
Participating in Social Securitry and being paid in any medium, including gold or silver or lawful money, isnt going to stop the W3 reporting to credit the SS account. You can be paid in cow manure and you will still get a W3 transmittal sent to the SSA listing amounts paid.
The irs uses the information from the SSA (the W3 reporting) to update its database.
Stop the reporting (dont participate) and the irs has absolutely nothing to base any liability or assessment on.
Heck stop participating and you dont earn "wages" either!

Besides just what do you think the IRS agent is going to think when you argue an erronous premise?

[Goldi]

On that thread it shows proof of people getting refunds when they have shown the proper indorsements on "income" checks. So the W-2,3,4 stuff makes no difference. They can report until the cows come home. If you can prove your intent to use only lawful money by way of a restricted indorsement on the back of the paycheck and destroy your purported tax liability, I think your premise needs to be reconsidered.

[Goldi]

Now, take THIS into consideration. Back about 6 months ago I was asked to facilitate the sale of some precious metals. I went to a preferred vendor, one who I had done business with, and the deal was struck. My friend mailed the metals to the vendor and I was asked to assist with the wire transfer details. I told the vendor to place on the "beneficiary instructions" line of the wire transfer document that the transfer is being made in 100% lawful money. The woman on the phone said, "well that's a first"...I said "I'm sure it is." The next day I get a call from her and she says "our lawyers have instructed us that we cannot do what you ask with regard to the lawful money notation and that we have to cancel the transaction if you will not agree". Now, this was a 5 figure transaction. So you tell me...why would the lawyers nix this simple little notation on a wire transfer document to the detriment of a 5 figure transaction if "there is nothing to this" and the whole premise is bull sh@t ????????? Now I know why they did that, but the point of the matter is that the lawyers know what it means too.

[JohnnyCash]

... Now, this was a 5 figure transaction. So you tell me...why would the lawyers nix this simple little notation on a wire transfer document to the detriment of a 5 figure transaction if "there is nothing to this" and the whole premise is bull sh@t ????????? Now I know why they did that, but the point of the matter is that the lawyers know what it means too.

I think it's a mistake to assume all lawyers know about lawful money. At least as we here at Planet Merrill do and use it practically. In fact, I think most people are unaware of it, including attorneys. Here is attorney Edwin Vieira Jr. talking about the conundrum of lawful money in Pieces of Eight:

http://jesse2012.com/PO8_819.jpg
http://jesse2012.com/PO8_820.jpg
http://jesse2012.com/PO8_822.jpg
http://jesse2012.com/PO8_824.jpg
http://jesse2012.com/PO8_826.jpg
http://jesse2012.com/PO8_828.jpg