Redeeming Lawful Money on Daily Paul

[David Merrill]

David, a composite of your comments above.

Some thoughts here if the bank refuses your novation and a strike-thru of W-9 verbiage (declaring 'U.S. person or U.S. citizen), relative to presenting your FRB lawful-money demand letter/proof-of-service:

If your lawful money demand is consistently executed and your record-keeping is pristine in that regard, would you think there is still any conflict with signing to that W-9 verbiage i.e. 'U.S person/citizen'?

As you have mentioned on many occasions the remedy necessary as written in law, I would think your demand and proper execution of that demand would supercede signing to that 'U.S. person/citizen' declaration (under duress no less).

Would like your thoughts (and others) relative to this example. I'm embarking on a new account and trying to cover my tracks and know the law.

I am transformed daily.

The items founded in fact and law seem stable enough but new nuances and colors form so that the impression I get from your post is to explain that the SSN is a key component to the W-4 and any other income tax form. Whether Social Security is a valid income tax like the Supreme Court said back in what (New Deal) 1938, or it is nothing more than a latent insurance policy about old age and disability; that is between your ears.

What do you think?

I believe that is very important - what you think. Make your demand and presume that you have done all you can do. What you think about the SSN as contractual nexus will decide how you handle somebody using the W-4 against you.

Some people have made their demand on the W-4 successfully and filed accordingly. No refund though because the boss sent no withholdings. But I don't like when people involve their bosses like that. One nasty call from the IRS and your boss will send withholdings with no exemptions and next layoffs you will be on the tip of the pink slips.

[allodial]

The items founded in fact and law seem stable enough but new nuances and colors form so that the impression I get from your post is to explain that the SSN is a key component to the W-4 and any other income tax form. Whether Social Security is a valid income tax like the Supreme Court said back in what (New Deal) 1938, or it is nothing more than a latent insurance policy about old age and disability; that is between your ears.

I know of at least one situation where someone got a job without an SSN between 2002 and present. The company put 000-00-0000 in for SSN on checks and such but still withheld FICA. A US passport was the sole ID used for the job--the I-9 instructions at least then indicated a US passport suffices as a stand-alone document.

Regarding territories of the United States, it might be important to consider Social Security Districts as territories or states of the United States.This might have significance with regard to FICA.

[itsmymoney]

Mr Merrill wrote: The items founded in fact and law seem stable enough but new nuances and colors form so that the impression I get from your post is to explain that the SSN is a key component to the W-4 and any other income tax form. Whether Social Security is a valid income tax like the Supreme Court said back in what (New Deal) 1938, or it is nothing more than a latent insurance policy about old age and disability; that is between your ears.

I'm thinking more of the 'U.S. person' declaration (under duress) with respect to that being a 'Federal privilege' therefore the 'income' you receive as that 'person' is administered/taxed via the excise tax it is intended to be. Employment tax (W-4) as you know is in a different Subtitle (C) than 'income' tax (A). The W-4 (Employment tax on 'wages') allows them to ALSO withhold against any potential 'income' tax liability under (A). The key is potential liability. If ALL pay was 'income' (which is what most people think) regardless of deductions or not, then 'wages' would be written as such under Subtitle A but it is not. 'Wages' is also not listed within Sec 61 as a source of 'Gross Income'.

However, by your research on this subject relative to lawful money, it would appear that 'wages' BECOMES 'income' under Subtitle A when you DO NOT restrict the payment in lawful money, which also supports the theory that if you do not redeem in lawful money then the 'U.S. person' comes into play by signing that W-9 or equivalent, therefore you have exacted 'Federal privilege' and now you must report that income as 'income', i.e. 'taxable income'.