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

[shikamaru]

The Informer was the first, as far as I know, to say that income tax is a user fee for FRN's. He is quite the researcher.

Is there an mp3 available for the broadcast you mentioned?

I'm trying to obtain a broadcast of his and James Montgomery that occurred live this past Saturday.

This should suffice in the meantime: http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...light=Informer

[shikamaru]

To show the cheese effect of case cites whether it has anything to do with me.

Am I your boy? talk about presumptions !

Well what is more so, getting your information from a third party(informer) or actually showing the statutes and acts referring to?

He gives cites.
If you ask me nicely, I may give them to you.

By what authority requires me to report?

My awesomeness .

Same to you , go big or go home. Why are you so hung up on the interpretations of the informer? Do you really think a judge
in court you are speaking to is going to care who the informer is?

This is not a court, motla.
Courts have their customs and practices that are their norms.

I'll humor you. I'd use their resources. There is more than enough to successfully administrate one's claims IF one enters that forum.
The wise administrator is the one who avoids controversy and can end controversies before they rise to the level of a hearing.

[motla68]

The Informer was the first, as far as I know, to say that income tax is a user fee for FRN's. He is quite the researcher.

Is there an mp3 available for the broadcast you mentioned?

I will save you the hassle of listening to a whole mp3, I do not think the informer was the first to say that, he just repeating what was heard or seen elsewhere.

It is much better to go right to the source.
user fees
An excise tax, often in the form of a license or supplemental charge, levied to fund a public service.

http://www.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/student/glossary.jsp

[Life's-a-Psyop]

I'm trying to obtain a broadcast of his and James Montgomery that occurred live this past Saturday.

This should suffice in the meantime: http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...light=Informer

Yes, that fantastic Informer thread, you put together, has plenty of food for thought right now.

[motla68]

He gives cites.
If you ask me nicely, I may give them to you.



My awesomeness .



This is not a court, motla.
Courts have their customs and practices that are their norms.

I'll humor you. I'd use their resources. There is more than enough to successfully administrate one's claims IF one enters that forum.
The wise administrator is the one who avoids controversy and can end controversies before they rise to the level of a hearing.

No thank you, got bigger fish to contend with.

yes, that profile was overdue being updated, guess we think alike in that respect.

Suppose we were able to make that claim without entering their forum?
Ditto in avoidance. This also applies to not using any case cites, man's statutes, regulations or policies. The simplification of it is just calling things for what they are.. i.e. not consenting to a offer to act as surety for an unvalidated claim. Fight and they got you in the cross hairs.
Affidavits are negative averments therefor affidavits are for subjects, Declarations and Petitions however is for those with incompetence to stand under their courts and that is not a bad thing to say.

[shikamaru]

Yes, that fantastic Informer thread, you put together, has plenty of food for thought right now.

I'll continue adding to it as I dig up more good stuff .

[jesse james]

That's because IT IS EZ! We humans tend to like to make things more complicated than they need to be, hence many of the attorneys today. ;-)

EZrythm would like me to show you why that affidavit is useless and will more than likely prove an attempt at tax fraud?
They will use that affidavit against you.

[shikamaru]

The Informer was the first, as far as I know, to say that income tax is a user fee for FRN's. He is quite the researcher.

Is there an mp3 available for the broadcast you mentioned?

"The Informer's" opinion was that income tax was a "use and transfer" fee on FRNs.
I remember that webpage on that.

[jesse james]

"The Informer's" opinion was that income tax was a "use and transfer" fee on FRNs.
I remember that webpage on that.

Key word right there......."opinion".

[stoneFree]

And we have demonstrable proof it is a use tax on FRNs. It's clear to me that "jesse james" is a tax attorney.

[motla68]

And we have demonstrable proof it is a use tax on FRNs. It's clear to me that "jesse james" is a tax attorney.

I tried to elude to that earlier in this thread so you could find it on your own, but I guess one has to be a little more blunt about what they are explaining here:

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?489-endorsing-and-SS.......a-big-question!&p=5232&viewfull=1#post5232

Just figured you would have known by now and just forgot, needing a reminder.

[jesse james]

EZrythm you cannot say you have no income and yet use an affidavit stating you are a willing participant of Social Security.
Ever really take an honest look into Social Security?
Earning 3121(a) "wages" is income.
For ease of understanding why you cannot say you dont have income and yet are a willing participant lets say to participate in Social security one earns a Social Security wage. This wage is going to be used as a means of measuring the credits towards benefits.

3121(a) "wages" is defined as all fruit except the term excludes-
1. Strawberry's and-
2. Banana's
Easy enough?

Ok onto defining 3401(a) "wages"
For the purpose of this chapter 3401(a) "wages" is defined as all vegetables except the term excludes-
1. Strawberry's
2. Banana's

Ok now you are wondering if 3401(a) "wages" is defined as all vegetables why in the heck does the 3401(a) "wage" exclude the same exclusions to 3121(a) "wages" that are fruit?
Good question huh?
This is where Hendricksons CtC theory falls apart and the reason why he's in prison today.
See EZRythm this is why the courts say 3401(a) "wages" is expansive to include the private sector along with government employees.
A little logic goes a long way.
By saying whats excluded in 3121(a) for the 3401(a) definition is telling you that 3121(a) "wages" are included in 3401(a).
You know Social Security covers a multitude of jobs or occupations that qualify for crediting the trust account for obtaining immediate and defered benefits offered by the government program.
So instead going the long route of listing every job or occupation they tell you the small list of jobs or occupations that dont qualify for crediting the trust account. This is a much simpler way.

This is exactly how the 3401(a) "wages" are written in Title 26.
Here see for yourself!

(a) Wages
For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include remuneration paid—

(1) for active service performed in a month for which such employee is entitled to the benefits of section 112 (relating to certain combat zone compensation of members of the Armed Forces of the United States) to the extent remuneration for such service is excludable from gross income under such section; or
(2) for agricultural labor (as defined in section 3121 (g)) unless the remuneration paid for such labor is wages (as defined in section 3121 (a)); or
[U](3) for domestic service in a private home, local college club, or local chapter of a college fraternity or sorority; or[/U]](9) for services performed by a duly ordained, commissioned, or licensed minister of a church in the exercise of his ministry or by a member of a religious order in the exercise of duties required by such order; [/U]or
(10)
(A) for services performed by an individual under the age of 18 in the delivery or distribution of newspapers or shopping news, not including delivery or distribution to any point for subsequent delivery or distribution; or (B) for services performed by an individual in, and at the time of, the sale of newspapers or magazines to ultimate consumers, under an arrangement under which the newspapers or magazines are to be sold by him at a fixed price, his compensation being based on the retention of the excess of such price over the amount at which the newspapers or magazines are charged to him, whether or not he is guaranteed a minimum amount of compensation for such services, or is entitled to be credited with the unsold newspapers or magazines turned back; or

EZRythm......prior the 1939 code you didnt see these Social Security exclusions in chapter 24's 3401(a) "wages".
Social Security didnt even exist until 1935.
This is why hendrickson is in jail because he wrote a book of his interpretive opinion that didnt line up with the actual law.
I hope you see why an affidavit such as yours isnt going to do anything except possible be used against you in a court of law.
You say you dont have income but yet by participating in Social Security you do because 3401(a) "wages" covers Social Security wages except for the exclusions. Whats excluded from Social Security is also excluded from the chapter 24 deduction and withholding requirement.
The only way you cannot have statutory "wages" is by either having a job that is excluded from the definition or dont even participate in the program altogether.

[jesse james]

I tried to elude to that earlier in this thread so you could find it on your own, but I guess one has to be a little more blunt about what they are explaining here:

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?489-endorsing-and-SS.......a-big-question!&p=5232&viewfull=1#post5232

Just figured you would have known by now and just forgot, needing a reminder.

Well you better start producing the law that says the use of FRN is the cause of taxation otherwise its just a bunch hearsay in a court setting.

[motla68]

Well you better start producing the law that says the use of FRN is the cause of taxation otherwise its just a bunch hearsay in a court setting.

I better or what? LOL, whatever man. Have you even heard of the Federal Reserve Act?

[jesse james]

I better or what? LOL, whatever man. Have you even heard of the Federal Reserve Act?

Its funny how you think redeeming lawful money will hold in court and yet you cannot procure any statute the courts can use to see your side. Zilch, nada, nothing!
The bottom line is it wasn't redeeming lawful money that attributes your success....................its your nonparticipation in Social Security. Just accept it!
Redeeming doesnt stop reporting to the government. Reporting revolves around participation of SS.
All redeeming is was to get gold back fiat. It was just a transitional period.........................they took it away havent they as you dont get gold backed paper........infact you get the same fiat currency.