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

[jesse james]

Because you asked about how is lawful money exempt wage from tax. What do you think lawful money is?
Where did I say that it applies to me?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]738[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]737[/ATTACH]

Doesnt matter if you sign the W4 exempt or not you are still under the rules and regulations of Social Security by signing a W4. The employer is still most likely reporting how much you earn to the SSA as 3121(a) "wages". The SSA puts this W3 info in the system. This is the same system the IRS uses to update their records. The irs records will show you earned 3401(a) "wages" as you did 3121(a) "wages" and havent had any deductions which will result in a deficiency letter.
That exempt status is only telling the employer to not withhold but you are still being treated as earning statutory "wages".
See.................what have I been saying about this lawful money theory.
Hey heres something for you to think about.
Remember a while ago that employer who paid his employers on gold coin face value. That by your definition is lawful money (untaxable, its gold right?), but the IRS still convicted the employer.
This is because the employer report "wages" to the IRS. It went into the record system where the IRS found out.

The battle to this is understanding "reporting" and reverse engineering from there back. In the end you will find your self standing in 1935 where reporting all started for the working class, the Social Security Act.
Its not rocket science, but for some of you thick skulled knuckle draggers its quantum mechanics.

[cernicolo]

this goes back to maxim of law i think, liability lies with he who made a thing needful. you made demand, coerced to accept an alternative, the liability lies with the other party.

[jesse james]

this goes back to maxim of law i think, liability lies with he who made a thing needful. you made demand, coerced to accept an alternative, the liability lies with the other party.

Huh.......?

[motla68]

Doesnt matter if you sign the W4 exempt or not you are still under the rules and regulations of Social Security by signing a W4. The employer is still most likely reporting how much you earn to the SSA as 3121(a) "wages". The SSA puts this W3 info in the system. This is the same system the IRS uses to update their records. The irs records will show you earned 3401(a) "wages" as you did 3121(a) "wages" and havent had any deductions which will result in a deficiency letter.
That exempt status is only telling the employer to not withhold but you are still being treated as earning statutory "wages".
See.................what have I been saying about this lawful money theory.
Hey heres something for you to think about.
Remember a while ago that employer who paid his employers on gold coin face value. That by your definition is lawful money (untaxable, its gold right?), but the IRS still convicted the employer.
This is because the employer report "wages" to the IRS. It went into the record system where the IRS found out.

The battle to this is understanding "reporting" and reverse engineering from there back. In the end you will find your self standing in 1935 where reporting all started for the working class, the Social Security Act.
Its not rocket science, but for some of you thick skulled knuckle draggers its quantum mechanics.

The attachments were not from me, it is from someone i showed how to do it.
For me they do not contact me anymore for the most part any time I send something requesting information they send back an acknowledgement that the information request was received and say wait 45 days for a response, but then they never respond. It could be because of some other things I have done in the past that it has a " do not mess with this guy " notice on the account or something.
The really odd thing though is that the state department of revenue is still contacting me, they have ignored most of my communications lately, first they garnished wages and I beat them at that through private administrative procedure and got back the funds they took, then they tried to levy a bank account, same deal there, they took me to court, beat them there too because I had showed the administrative judge what i had done with the other things and he dismissed the case for lack of a valid claim, but these ignoramuses still send me a bill, reminder notices to file e.t.c.

[Treefarmer]

I did answer your questions......even commented on 411. 411 has nothing at all to do with you being a bank.
Not my problem if you dont like my answers.
And what makes you think I know every answer to your tricky loaded questions....hmmm?
Well why dont you start researching the events surrounding and leading up to the enactment to replace the treasury notes.

No loaded questions; only straight forward, plain and simple questions which I thought you may be able to answer, considering how sure you seem to be of your opinions on how the "income tax" system works.

Research is why we are here assembled in this forum.
Why are you here?

[fishnet]

Research is why we are here assembled in this forum.
Why are you here?

I am considering jesse james a disinformation agent of the controlled opposition front. My mind is not made up as of yet.

[jesse james]

I am considering jesse james a disinformation agent of the controlled opposition front. My mind is not made up as of yet.

Then you have no reasoning if you think I'm an agent.
I'm posing questions your research hasnt an answer to other than your research is just interpretive opinion, that wont, and never has held up in court. The same tuff questions I asked myself with my research.
I've done my research (since 1995) and so far every lawyer who has looked at it basically states............."impressive......! Wouldnt want to be on the opposing councel."
This is what you have to do.............ask the hard questions and be honest about it. Put it under a microscope which some fools here thinks is a pathetic thing to do.

I'm here because a forum member here was yapping his mouth about CtC on a different forum which I challenged him to. He failed miserably, as expected from a failed theory. He waffled back and forth between merrill and hendrickson theories. I dont think he fully knows whats going on. I hope i enlightened him a bit to at least be prepared to defend himself when the time comes. But his ego thinks I'm some boogy man from quatloos. Its obvious he doesnt like his pride getting kicked around so he took it out in a childish way. Thats fine as I hope he understands ego cannot get in his way when the hammer falls to defend himself in court.
They will walk all over him if hes not prepared.

[stoneFree]

Plus one for you, fishnet! A good disinfo agent will often mix-in a good amount of truth, just as our bank-auditor-cpa-turned-tax-attorney does here. Does it matter to the SSA/IRS how the employee signs the W4? Probably not. Employees Forms W4 sat in a cabinet never seen by anyone but company owner & the bookkeeper. Company did send employee earning amounts to the SSA which likely DID create the presumption of statutory wages. Company made the decision to withhold, to create presumption, to help enslave them. Based on what? The opinions of CPA/attorneys like jesse james.

But, the worker still has the right to be heard. Were the reported earnings really "wages?" Did the worker endorse private credit or redeem lawful money?

And yes, I recall the case of the employer who paid employees in gold. What you neglected to mention: the gold was purchased with unredeemed debt notes of the Federal Reserve. Therefore, US Treasury carried first lien. Company owner didn't have highest title to the gold.

[jesse james]

Plus one for you, fishnet! A good disinfo agent will often mix-in a good amount of truth, just as our bank-auditor-cpa-turned-tax-attorney does here. Does it matter to the SSA/IRS how the employee signs the W4? Probably not. Employees Forms W4 sat in a cabinet never seen by anyone but company owner & the bookkeeper. Company did send employee earning amounts to the SSA which likely DID create the presumption of statutory wages. Company made the decision to withhold, to create presumption, to help enslave them. Based on what? The opinions of CPA/attorneys like jesse james.

But, the worker still has the right to be heard. Were the reported earnings really "wages?" Did the worker endorse private credit or redeem lawful money?

And yes, I recall the case of the employer who paid employees in gold. What you neglected to mention: the gold was purchased with unredeemed debt notes of the Federal Reserve. Therefore, US Treasury carried first lien. Company owner didn't have highest title to the gold.

Hahahahaha..............now that is laughable! First lein?.......wheres that mentioned in 411? Or is this a perfect example of one of your fish stories where you always have a better story.

What dont you get about presumption? Oh thats right.............presumption is a hendrickson CtC thingy!
If the employer is reporting "wages" then by logic there is no presumption about it. The earnings are bonified "wages" that the worker signed to earn.
The ctc thesis is about being presumed a "government employee"............another invention of Pete Hendrickson. Read the law and maybe a few court cases Libra!
The courts repeatedly say that 3401(c) "employee" is expansive to include the private sector.
Title 26 chapter 24 section 3401(a) didnt include Social Security 3121(a) "wages" until the 1939 code. And if you read chapter 21 3121(a) "wages" it, clear as the sky is blue, excludes a majority of government workers from participating in Social Security. Do you understand what that means?
What it means is that Hendrickson is a fool and cant comprehend a darn thing.
To sum up 3121(a) "wages" only short term government workers are allowed to participate in Social Security such as enlisted soldiers. Career government workers are not permitted to participate. They have their own seperate government retirement program.
You damn well know congress and the likes do not participate in Social Security. How many emails have you read that if Congress was to have the same benefits as the common people through Social Security they would change SS over night?
Yeah we all seen the emails so why cant you put 2 and 2 together to come up with 4 instead of 22?
So you tell us here in this forum why Hendrickson keeps insisting that 3401(c) "employee" is to mean only "government employees" when you see Social Security 3121(a) "wages" (that most career government employees are not permitted to participate) in amongst the definition of 3401(a) "wages" that is supposedly only earned by government employees.
Doesnt make a whole lot of sense does it...............no logic there is there?
The very statutes hendrickson relies on in his book says Hendrickson is a damn fool who cannot read nor comprehend correctly.
Any wonder the fool is in the grey bar hotel?

Without any proof I'm who you say I am doesn't make you look as cool as you think you are libra.
You are failing miserable here. Getting kicked around pretty good arent you!

[David Merrill]

The First Lien by the Treasury is mentioned on the Notice of Tax Lien.

[stoneFree]

Calm down Jay, have you forgotten I'm immune to your venom. Yes, "employee" is expansive to include the private sector. This is a scam. Of course its operators would expand it to include as many as possible. The trust was opened up in 193X so anyone could endorse Fed Reserve credit and become subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

I know you must be feeling down and discouraged at not gaining any traction here. Your attempts to sow discord & division haven't worked. And you haven't steered anyone away from our lawful money remedy found at 12 USC 411.

[jesse james]

The First Lien by the Treasury is mentioned on the Notice of Tax Lien.

Mr. Merrill
You say tax lien by the Treasury........................shouldnt the first lien be from the federal reserve board?
Trying to follow this redeeming money idea, but the first tax lien from the Treasury isnt making much logic.

[jesse james]

Calm down Jay, have you forgotten I'm immune to your venom. Yes, "employee" is expansive to include the private sector. This is a scam. Of course its operators would expand it to include as many as possible. The trust was opened up in 193X so anyone could endorse Fed Reserve credit and become subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

I know you must be feeling down and discouraged at not gaining any traction here. Your attempts to sow discord & division haven't worked. And you haven't steered anyone away from our lawful money remedy found at 12 USC 411.

See you are confused.................first you say "yes" it does expand to encompass the private sector. Then in the very next sentence you call it a scam!
How can it be a scam when clearly the black letter law says career government employees cannot participate in Social Security.

And since you allow your ego to do your talking show the statute or any wording in the Reserve Act remotely suggesting endorsing fiat reserve note subjects the entity endorsing the fiat to the jurisdiction thereof!
Jurisdiction of what!!!!!!!!!?
Banks are not political bodies consisting of boundaries and land.
I want to see this libra.
First of all Libra "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" comes directly from the 14th amendment and its the only Constitutional amendment establishing a second class citizen.
You know as I know the reserve act has no wording like this anywhere within the act.
No Congressional Act has ever had "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" wording ever. The Constitution doesnt grant Congress or anyone that kind of authority. The US Constitution is the only document having that kind of authority and it only gets that kind of authority by the People through ratification........not territorial Congressional acts.
Just so you dont twist what I'm saying around. Congress gets its authority from the US Constitution. If you notice its an amendment to the law of the land that has authority....not congress!
So in essence you are saying by endorsing alone brings the entity under the jurisdiction of Congress or the board of reserve bank Govenors................. what is it you are saying?
If so then what you are saying is that since the US dollar is the worlds reserve currency then every country trading in US dollars is subject to the Reseve banks or Congress?

Hahahahahaha.........
Please by all means explain this smelly pile of dung!
I have to ask......did you fall asleep or daydream in government class?

[motla68]

See you are confused.................first you say "yes" it does expand to encompass the private sector. Then in the very next sentence you call it a scam!
How can it be a scam when clearly the black letter law says career government employees cannot participate in Social Security.

And since you allow your ego to do your talking show the statute or any wording in the Reserve Act remotely suggesting endorsing fiat reserve note subjects the entity endorsing the fiat to the jurisdiction thereof!
Jurisdiction of what!!!!!!!!!?
Banks are not political bodies consisting of boundaries and land.
I want to see this libra.
First of all Libra "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" comes directly from the 14th amendment and its the only Constitutional amendment establishing a second class citizen.
You know as I know the reserve act has no wording like this anywhere within the act.
No Congressional Act has ever had "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" wording ever. The Constitution doesnt grant Congress or anyone that kind of authority. The US Constitution is the only document having that kind of authority and it only gets that kind of authority by the People through ratification........not territorial Congressional acts.
Just so you dont twist what I'm saying around. Congress gets its authority from the US Constitution. If you notice its an amendment to the law of the land that has authority....not congress!
So in essence you are saying by endorsing alone brings the entity under the jurisdiction of Congress or the board of reserve bank Govenors................. what is it you are saying?
If so then what you are saying is that since the US dollar is the worlds reserve currency then every country trading in US dollars is subject to the Reseve banks or Congress?

Hahahahahaha.........
Please by all means explain this smelly pile of dung!
I have to ask......did you fall asleep or daydream in government class?

Just to name a couple for your benefit:

"" H.R. 1363, the "Citizenship Reform Act of 1995," exemplifies the various legislative proposals before the committees. The stated purpose of the bill is "to deny automatic citizenship at birth to children born in the United States to parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens." Section 3(a) of the bill amends section 301(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which grants U.S. citizenship "at birth" to all persons "born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Specifically, section 3(a) proposes to define the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to include only children born to U.S. citizens or permanent resident aliens. ""

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[jesse james]

Just to name a couple for your benefit:

"" H.R. 1363, the "Citizenship Reform Act of 1995," exemplifies the various legislative proposals before the committees. The stated purpose of the bill is "to deny automatic citizenship at birth to children born in the United States to parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens." Section 3(a) of the bill amends section 301(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which grants U.S. citizenship "at birth" to all persons "born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Specifically, section 3(a) proposes to define the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to include only children born to U.S. citizens or permanent resident aliens. ""

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Did you happen to notice that the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is preestablished by the Constitution and not by Congress?
Congress doesnt have that authority to make subjects...............the people do through their Trust called the Constitution.
Congress references the Constitution as the authority.

Anyone here notice the only condition to being a "US citizen"?
Notice in section 1 of the 14th amendment the comma after United States.

You can be born and naturalized all day long, but you have to be subject to the jurisdiction thereof before becoming a US citizen.
Now ask yourself..............why do they ask for your permission all the time.......like signing a W4 agreement or SS5.
Why a W4 before the start of every new job?
Because you have to submit to being a lower class of citizen where congress has jurisdiction to tax and regulate you.

A State citizen is the People above their created government.
A "US citizen" is a subject.

“We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of it’s own...”
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

“...he was not a citizen of the United States, he was a citizen and voter of the State,...” “One may be a citizen of a State an yet not a citizen of the United States”.
McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)

“That there is a citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state,...”
Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)

"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."
Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383

“The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other”.
Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)

“There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such”.
Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900)

“The rights and privileges, and immunities which the fourteenth constitutional amendment and Rev. St. section 1979 [U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1262], for its enforcement, were designated to protect, are such as belonging to citizens of the United States as such, and not as citizens of a state”.
Wadleigh v. Newhall 136 F. 941 (1905)

“...rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship”.
Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)