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

[jesse james]

P.P.S. Above me in the shelf are the five years of the Roosevelt Administration from 1932-1936. And the full set is available to me at the federal repository. If you really wanted to outline what you are saying in detail about the implementation of the Income Tax that would be a great way to do it. For the April 15th Deadline though, you might have to go earlier by a few years (1861):

Dont know why April 15th is of any big deal here?
You Dave act as though this 37th congress session is a big deal.
I dont care what day they picked as a deadline to file as it doesnt matter. The matter and point was a majority of the American population didnt file until 1940.
And your previous post about shaving off twenty years and something about 4 other years.................what point are you trying to make here?
Your premise is that the mere use or having fiat in your pocket imposes the income tax by your very own words!
Well.................what does the reserve bank charter of 20 years have to do with anything?
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.
So which is it Mr. Merrill?
Does or does not the reserve act with its "supposed" hidden fiat imposition cause taxation or not?....you cant have it both ways......or can you?
You know over at another site a quatloosers has chimed in saying you are legally a nutcase. Even showed the document stating you cannot be legally held accountable. basically it says nobody should take you word for anything. And from the looks of this you are waffling back and forth much like Hendrickson did and still does when confronted with facts that cause his theory to spiral down in a flaming crash.

[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]

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:


or



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..

Thank you for that Allodial! I am making some headway with that.

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.

That is the significance of the Thirty-Seventh Congress alright! The implied trust about money became express - IN GOD WE TRUST - 1863.

Dont know why April 15th is of any big deal here?

I showed you, that was the date set in 1861 by Abraham LINCOLN.

You Dave act as though this 37th congress session is a big deal.

Yes. In the grand scheme of things America in a civil war enabling fiat is a big deal.

I dont care what day they picked as a deadline to file as it doesnt matter. The matter and point was a majority of the American population didnt file until 1940.

I already presumed that you are correct but you still have made no effort to convince me. I am not calling you a liar, just saying that you do not meet any rules of evidence with that assertion. I already agreed that it sounds right according to HITLER coming into power and forming a war chest for WWII.

And your previous post about shaving off twenty years and something about 4 other years.................what point are you trying to make here?

I made my point above. I would copy and paste my post from above simply to avoid your attorney-like trolling. You want me to paraphrase in a manner that is easier to debunk? No, thank you.

Your premise is that the mere use or having fiat in your pocket imposes the income tax by your very own words!
Well.................what does the reserve bank charter of 20 years have to do with anything?

I think you are joindering Allodial into my posts, but I don't think that is what he is saying. What I get is that as we form the New Trust of FDR's by endorsing the private credit with our salary checks we become the enforcement arm against ourselves. We become our own Taxpayer/IRS Agents. That is what I got from Allodial's posts. The IRS is just keeping the Record of our agreements (1040 Form).

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?

Does or does not the reserve act with its "supposed" hidden fiat imposition cause taxation or not?....you cant have it both ways......or can you?

I redeem lawful money. So your point is moot. I demand cash. I teach people how to redeem lawful money and they get full refunds of their withholdings and after careful contemplation by the IRS agents and IRS attorneys. The one more significant example was outstanding! Just recently the IRS backed off with this letter.

You know over at another site a quatloosers has chimed in saying you are legally a nutcase. Even showed the document stating you cannot be legally held accountable. basically it says nobody should take you word for anything. And from the looks of this you are waffling back and forth much like Hendrickson did and still does when confronted with facts that cause his theory to spiral down in a flaming crash.

I think you are fabricating that, my waffling. I edited my harsh comments about Quatlosers and their pathetic addiction on ridicule, before I read your post far enough to get that last paragraph. You make my point about that, in my opinion. You are a bored Quatloser. Like pointed out before by somebody else here I was moderated to the point that I became bored. Having to wait for my kind of fun, that threw off the timing so I was simply no longer entertained. If you need me back so badly then have Wserra lift my moderated status.

Your attack has not yet arisen to anything I will defend other than that the psychological evaluation of which you speak was by a State sock-puppet who was lying. I recorded the interview and put that sound track in a video that I share openly as a great lesson about record-forming and consent. The interview, according to fact never happened because he could not get me to sign the consent form. I am not going to buy into your distraction and trolling further than for you to Click Here.

I would like to say that I am sorry you have become bored with Quatloos - but I am not. I wrote a thread early on about my being thick-skinned with you Quatlosers. Since members here are verifying remedy exists all the time now, I think that goes double for you. I enjoy the new troll here but if you start detracting from the entertainment and education values of this website I will deal with you appropriately.

[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.

[Weston White]

Motla68,
The irs has sent a memo for all exempt W4's to withhold at 30%. You may find yourself in the irs crosshairs when they review the data (W3) authorized by the W4 and see that you are indeed accumulating income but haven't had deductions withheld.
I bring this up because the W4 is giving the employer permission to treat your earnings as "wages" and as "wages" income tax liabilities incur at 26USC 3101 and 26USC 3402. Exempt or not this "exempt" status is not by any means telling the irs you cant be touched.

in cases where the employee requests such changeshttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...2----000-.htmlnotice of maximum number of withholding exemptions permitted may be issued ifcontains a materially incorrect statement or determines, after a request to the employee for verification of the statements on the certificate, that the IRS lacks sufficient information to determine if the certificate is correct.
(B) The IRS otherwise determines that the employee is not entitled to claim a complete exemption from withholding and is not entitled to claim more than a specified number of withholding exemptionshttp://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_20...02(f)(2)-1.htm

[jesse james]

in cases where the employee requests such changes. …”
See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...2----000-.html

ii. The only regulation concerning such notices/letters is found within 26 CFR Sec. 31.3402(f)(2)-1(g)(2)(i) — ‘Withholding exemption certificates’ (which (being merely a 'regulation') is superseded in context by the scope prescribed under statute) and is intended only to ensure that employees are claiming only what they are lawfully entitled to and not to be enforced as a venomous form of maximum withholding punishment (the IRS does none of the below, save for issuing the harrassing letter):

“Notice of the maximum number of withholding exemptions permitted--(i) Notice to employer. The IRS may notify the employer in writing that the employee is not entitled to claim a complete exemption from withholding or more than the maximum number of withholding exemptions specified by the IRS in the written notice. The notice will also specify the applicable marital status for purposes of calculating the required amount of withholding. The notice will specify the IRS office to be contacted for further information. The notice of maximum number of withholding exemptions permitted may be issued if--
(A) The IRS determines that a copy of a withholding exemption Certificate submitted under paragraph (g)(1) [“An employer must submit to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) a copy of any currently effective withholding exemption certificate as directed in a written notice to the employer from the IRS or as directed in published guidance.”] of this section or otherwise provided to the IRS contains a materially incorrect statement or determines, after a request to the employee for verification of the statements on the certificate, that the IRS lacks sufficient information to determine if the certificate is correct.
(B) The IRS otherwise determines that the employee is not entitled to claim a complete exemption from withholding and is not entitled to claim more than a specified number of withholding exemptions.
…”
See: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_20...02(f)(2)-1.htm

Hey there Weston!
Its been a long time since we talked over at your site.
Just last week i tried to log in and couldnt remember my password.

To reply to your post..................read regulation 26cfr 1-1.1 for the reason you think the IRS cant slap a lock in letter.
The key to this is your consent to being their subject.......................the federal "US citizen".
US citizens are regulated and taxed heavily.......................the People are not!

[Chex]

Thank You Jessie...Contract ...................Corporate Info

Under the notion of "pre-existing duties," if either the promisor or the promisee already had a legal obligation to render such payment, it cannot be seen as consideration in the legal sense.

In contract law in the United States, the pre-existing duty rule is a legal concept relating to when the performance of a legal duty is classified as consideration.

Generally, performing a legal duty which is already owed under a contract does not constitute consideration, unless that duty is unclear or honestly disputed.

That is, once a party agrees to do something under a contract, that party cannot change the terms without consideration and expect the new terms to be enforceable.

This is expressed as the legal duty rule, and usually occurs in one of three different ways: Wikipedia

[jesse james]

Thank You Jessie...Contract ...................Corporate Info

Under the notion of "pre-existing duties," if either the promisor or the promisee already had a legal obligation to render such payment, it cannot be seen as consideration in the legal sense.

In contract law in the United States, the pre-existing duty rule is a legal concept relating to when the performance of a legal duty is classified as consideration.

Generally, performing a legal duty which is already owed under a contract does not constitute consideration, unless that duty is unclear or honestly disputed.

That is, once a party agrees to do something under a contract, that party cannot change the terms without consideration and expect the new terms to be enforceable.

This is expressed as the legal duty rule, and usually occurs in one of three different ways: Wikipedia

Well since you bring up "duties" somewhere on the Social Security website one condition in participating is paying all duties (taxes) associated with participating in SS.
Both the impositions found at 26usc 3402 and 26usc 3101 are "pre-existing duties" to pay the taxes associated with participating in Social Security.
Has nothing at all to do with lawful money or fiat money.

[Treefarmer]

Well since you bring up "duties" somewhere on the Social Security website one condition in participating is paying all duties (taxes) associated with participating in SS.
Both the impositions found at 26usc 3402 and 26usc 3101 are "pre-existing duties" to pay the taxes associated with participating in Social Security.
Has nothing at all to do with lawful money or fiat money.

Then why is there a "federal income tax" and a separate "FICA" tax and a "Medicare tax" listed on a W-2 form?
Are you saying that all three are Social Security taxes, but split up into three different categories?
If so, why are they split up?

[Weston White]

Are those not all but hidden taxes anyway? With them all going directly into a general fund with nothing being earmarked for a specific purpose; just the same as "Obamacare", yet another pointless tax hike at 2.5/5-percent (or more) annually. With the federal government reserving the right to terminate such entitlement programs at anytime they see fit, which subsequently could result in the forfeiture of any future benefits in those programs or in greatly reduced benefits from such entitlements, dependent upon nothing but the generosity of whoever is holding the House at the time.

[Hbert997]

Well since you bring up "duties" somewhere on the Social Security website one condition in participating is paying all duties (taxes) associated with participating in SS.
Both the impositions found at 26usc 3402 and 26usc 3101 are "pre-existing duties" to pay the taxes associated with participating in Social Security.
Has nothing at all to do with lawful money or fiat money.

What jesse is describing (correctly, by the way!) is explained very well right here:

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citizenship/citizenshipdiagrams.pdf

Hbert

[shikamaru]

Then why is there a "federal income tax" and a separate "FICA" tax and a "Medicare tax" listed on a W-2 form?
Are you saying that all three are Social Security taxes, but split up into three different categories?
If so, why are they split up?

Federal income tax is separate from the other two.

FICA has to do with SS.
Medicare has to do with social insurance .... interesting.

If Medicare is a social insurance program ... the tax you pay is your premium in contribution to the program....

Interestingly enough, France and Canada also have Medicare or some form of social insurance program. I have a hunch this may be international in scope. If this is the case, then there are greater implications not spoken ....

Insurance is squarely in the realm of Admiralty/Maritime law.

It is not unlawful for government to tax a benefit given (per the Supreme Court). I've seen this in one of the Supreme Court cases on Social Security. I'm guessing it is Flemming v. Nestor (1960), but don't quote me on it.

If you accept a benefit from government, expect there to be a tax.
If you want to reduce your exposure to taxes, decline the benefits .
Cease to be a beneficiary.

[jesse james]

Federal income tax is separate from the other two.

FICA has to do with SS.
Medicare has to do with social insurance .... interesting.

If Medicare is a social insurance program ... the tax you pay is your premium in contribution to the program....

Interestingly enough, France and Canada also have Medicare or some form of social insurance program. I have a hunch this may be international in scope. If this is the case, then there are greater implications not spoken ....

Insurance is squarely in the realm of Admiralty/Maritime law.

It is not unlawful for government to tax a benefit given (per the Supreme Court). I've seen this in one of the Supreme Court cases on Social Security. I'm guessing it is Flemming v. Nestor (1960), but don't quote me on it.

If you accept a benefit from government, expect there to be a tax.
If you want to reduce your exposure to taxes, decline the benefits .
Cease to be a beneficiary.

No its not unlawful for the government to tax a benefit................especialy a benefit that comes directly and administered from the government itself.
Social Security is a federal government benefit program that has no mandatory participation clause in it whatsoever............its all voluntary.
And its voluntary to participate because in doing so you proclaim under penalty of perjury to being a 14th amendment federal "US citizen" having but a scant Bill of Right protections of the Constitution.
If they would have such a mandatory participation clause in the benefit Act it would be in violation of the US Constitution on many different levels.
Do you think they could force every American to participate if this mandatory participation labels you a second class citizen that has a little Bill of Rights?
This fight against taxation boils down to "RIGHTS" not money!