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

[Guest]

Hello everyone.
I'm new here, but have had lengthy conversations with a member here going by the addy "johnycash".
First off, I want to say I'm an old schiffite and banished from the CtC forum. I analys everything to make for sure it holds water.
Anyway, after discontinueing the conversation with JC (who kept reffering me as larry....aka famspear and a host of others from quatloos) I decided to join this forum as JC kept pointing this website out in his posts on another forum. And by the way, I'm not associated with quatloos in anyway....just not buying a lot of theories!
I'll admit I dont understand this 411 endorsing fiat into lawful money thingy you have going on here. I have a very good and hard hitting question about the liabilities eminating from social security that really need to be addressed.
What I dont understand is how endorsing a check in such a way, after deductions from 3101 and 3402 already taken out, can eliminate federal income liability? This is the premise that "johnycash" has brought forward anyway.

I couldnt get a straight answer from johnthetaxist....aka "johnnycash" here at this forum.
Any help is appreciated.

[David Merrill]

Hello everyone.
I'm new here, but have had lengthy conversations with a member here going by the addy "johnycash".
First off, I want to say I'm an old schiffite and banished from the CtC forum. I analys everything to make for sure it holds water.
Anyway, after discontinueing the conversation with JC (who kept reffering me as larry....aka famspear and a host of others from quatloos) I decided to join this forum as JC kept pointing this website out in his posts on another forum. And by the way, I'm not associated with quatloos in anyway....just not buying a lot of theories!
I'll admit I dont understand this 411 endorsing fiat into lawful money thingy you have going on here. I have a very good and hard hitting question about the liabilities eminating from social security that really need to be addressed.
What I dont understand is how endorsing a check in such a way, after deductions from 3101 and 3402 already taken out, can eliminate federal income liability? This is the premise that "johnycash" has brought forward anyway.

I couldnt get a straight answer from johnthetaxist....aka "johnnycash" here at this forum.
Any help is appreciated.

Social Security itself is a legitimate Income Tax.

Read this Text File and if you want, watch my video about it.

I first began to realize how serious this Income Tax is treated when a suitor went on SS. He had a $1K check and tried to non-endorse it like all his other checks. The bank refused to do it. He did not have the patience to work it through so he followed their suggestion and took it to the Plexiglas-protected "CASH YOUR PAYCHECKS HERE - VIDEOS - PAWN SHOP". They were apparently expecting him and when he tendered the SS check the lady pulled out a Sharpie and completely blacked out his Demand!

It was very discouraging for him.

The technique by the way is that once the demand is made, give it a single strikethrough and get a copy. Now you have your cash and your demand on record too. You do not have to have received lawful money to have demanded it. The lawful money is identical to FRNs anyway! It is making your demand that is important. If the bank made you strike it through to put groceries on the table then how can that affect your demand?



Regards,

David Merrill.

[motla68]

Welcome to the group Jesse. I can attest that somewhat of a newbie myself here the scientific proof is definitely challenged here so your in the right group.

Not just the lawful money aspect of things lets address something very interesting about Social Security, back some years ago when I was one to really work the statutes over there is on section that was one of my favorites you could have some fun with, that was 26 USC 6334, let me show you some linking subsections here that you might find interesting:

(c) No other property exempt
Notwithstanding any other law of the United States (including section 207 of the Social Security Act), no property or rights to property shall be exempt from levy other than the property specifically made exempt by subsection (a).

Interesting how they hide that little provision, Let's go check out section 207 of the Social Security Act:

(a) " none of the moneys paid or payable or rights existing under this title shall be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process, or to the operation of any bankruptcy or insolvency law."

So there you go, you got the lawful money backing up the front end when signing for checks, then also if they try to go after benefits already paid out you have this to back you up. Quite a few years ago helped an old guy out with this on his SS benefits and the IRS has left him alone since then.

[jesse james]

I guess I didnt make myself clear.
One of the forum members references that by endorsing a check into lawful money stops the federal income tax impositions.
I said I disagree with this premise because endorsing a check to receive lawful money instead of fiat is after the 3101 and 3402 impositions.
I couldnt wrap my head around how a check that already has the neccessary deductions deducted could stop the Social Security W3 reporting.
I showed this person regulations and law stating all IRS data comes from the W3 the SSA receives from the employer.
I tried explaining to this individual the liability and amounts reported is gonna still remain in the system and that to stop all liability the W3 has to be stopped at the source.....the employer.
Well the arguement continued until I just told him that I will no longer deal with him and his accusations that I was Larry from quatloos.
The guy just didnt want to listen to logic or reason.
Now I'm not saying anything about lawful money as you can redeem lawful money at will, but redeeming lawful money doesnt stop the requirements of reporting when its after the fact.

[JohnnyCash]

Welcome "Jesse"
Yes, we have had lengthy conversations over at FreedomWatch, dating back several years, where I accused him of being a fake patriot, and of being the alternate persona of "Larry Williams" there. And yes; I strongly suspect "Jesse" is a Quatloos.com member, likely Famspear. He loves to argue, misdirect, and spread fear & disinfo. Generally, to keep sheople in the taxpaying pen.

And no, I did not put forth the premise that redeeming a paycheck with SS deductions into lawful money could stop W3 reporting or SS taxation. I told him that I no longer pay income or SS taxes. I receive all my pay without any deductions and therefore cannot test that premise myself.

FINALLY! The Quatloser arrives.

[motla68]

I guess I didnt make myself clear.
One of the forum members references that by endorsing a check into lawful money stops the federal income tax impositions.
I said I disagree with this premise because endorsing a check to receive lawful money instead of fiat is after the 3101 and 3402 impositions.
I couldnt wrap my head around how a check that already has the neccessary deductions deducted could stop the Social Security W3 reporting.
I showed this person regulations and law stating all IRS data comes from the W3 the SSA receives from the employer.
I tried explaining to this individual the liability and amounts reported is gonna still remain in the system and that to stop all liability the W3 has to be stopped at the source.....the employer.
Well the arguement continued until I just told him that I will no longer deal with him and his accusations that I was Larry from quatloos.
The guy just didnt want to listen to logic or reason.
Now I'm not saying anything about lawful money as you can redeem lawful money at will, but redeeming lawful money doesn't stop the requirements of reporting when its after the fact.

Please see attachments as an option;

[jesse james]

I put you on ignore johny cash.

[jesse james]

Please see attachments as an option;

[ATTACH=CONFIG]723[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]724[/ATTACH]

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.

[JohnnyCash]

HA! Remember over at FreedomWatch when you said you'd submitted papers to SSA to terminate your participation? But then could not provide any documentation to backup your claims? Well I HAVE successfully stopped paying Social Security in 2008, Jesse, take a look:

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?461&p=5059&posted=1#post5059

Here at STSC we don't just talk, we execute with proof. We get reproducible results. As an example, just today I blew past a statey in an unmarked car. After he finally caught up in his Toyota hoopty I handed the DL over saying "I'm showing this for competency not for identification." Let me tell you, prior to my discovering Planet Merrill, this would've been an automatic several hundred dollar ticket, but today, nothing but a few questions, "why were you traveling so fast?" "what's your driving record look like?" No ticket, no written warning, no nuthin honey. (NOTE: Please drive safely observing all traffic rules. Speed kills.)

Continue playing?

[motla68]

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.

31 USC 3124
(a) Stocks and obligations of the United States Government are exempt from taxation by a State or political subdivision of a State.
The exemption applies to each form of taxation that would require the obligation, the interest on the obligation, or both, to be considered in computing a tax, except - (1) a nondiscriminatory franchise tax or another nonproperty tax instead of a franchise tax, imposed on a corporation; and (2) an estate or inheritance tax. (b) The tax status of interest on obligations and dividends, earnings, or other income from evidences of ownership issued by the Government or an agency and the tax treatment of gain and loss from the disposition of those obligations and evidences of ownership is decided under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). An obligation that the Federal Housing Administration had agreed, under a contract made before March 1, 1941, to issue at a future date, has the tax exemption privileges provided by the authorizing law at the time of the contract.

And I have more where that came from.

[jesse james]

Motla68,
I put everything under the microscope here as everyone should do. You have to play court here being an impartial judge (being honest with yourself).
Can you, Motla68, provide how stocks and obligations of 31USC 3124 has anything at all to with 3121 "wages"?................apples and oranges here.
Stocks and obligations aren't the same as "wages" (working for a living) and this is saying that "stocks and obligations" of the united States government are exempt by a state.
And yes if you have more then bring it to the table and lets put it under the microscope!

Also,
I would like to add to my previous post about the employer and the exempt W4.
Most forget that even though you file the W4 exempt the employer is still matching a precentage of what you make and handing it over to the SSA. What this means is its a back door for the irs to start an audit because the amounts being matched by the employer is computed and will be compared to the amounts he is reporting you earn even though nothing is being deducted and/or withheld.
Like I told johny cash you havent really accomplished anything as the IRS sees you still earning reportable income.
Johny cash attributes his success because he is not telling everyone that he has control over the reporting which for the 99.999999999% rest of us is not the case. That in my book is a bit deceiving and untrust worthy.
I'm here to put to the test the theory of lawful money so those who dont have control of the W3 are more informed of possible trouble in the future.
They deserve to see another side of things before the IRS hands out 5,000.00 penalties.

[JohnnyCash]

No Jesse, my success isn't only due to lack of W3/1096 reporting, you're forgetting the other mechanism they have to check for taxable income. They can easily check the bank account attached to the SSN/TIN (can't have a bank account without one) to see if I deposited (excisable) Fed Reserve money, or lawful money ...



Keep playing?

[motla68]

Motla68,
I put everything under the microscope here as everyone should do. You have to play court here being an impartial judge (being honest with yourself).
Can you, Motla68, provide how stocks and obligations of 31USC 3124 has anything at all to with 3121 "wages"?................apples and oranges here.
Stocks and obligations aren't the same as "wages" (working for a living) and this is saying that "stocks and obligations" of the united States government are exempt by a state.
And yes if you have more then bring it to the table and lets put it under the microscope!

Also,
I would like to add to my previous post about the employer and the exempt W4.
Most forget that even though you file the W4 exempt the employer is still matching a precentage of what you make and handing it over to the SSA. What this means is its a back door for the irs to start an audit because the amounts being matched by the employer is computed and will be compared to the amounts he is reporting you earn even though nothing is being deducted and/or withheld.
Like I told johny cash you havent really accomplished anything as the IRS sees you still earning reportable income.
Johny cash attributes his success because he is not telling everyone that he has control over the reporting which for the 99.999999999% rest of us is not the case. That in my book is a bit deceiving and untrust worthy.
I'm here to put to the test the theory of lawful money so those who dont have control of the W3 are more informed of possible trouble in the future.
They deserve to see another side of things before the IRS hands out 5,000.00 penalties.

Sometimes one can be so focused on the details under a microscope that they forget things learned elsewhere.
If you know anything about commercial law you would know that the issuer of a public registered security always
has the obligations attached to that security. Wages, interest, stocks or whatever it depends on intent of how
received. So in the matter of making demand for lawful money i.e. public registered securities it is not apples
and oranges. I have had a pretty lengthy conversation with a corporate attorney over this when once I was
hired for what they called a non-exempt position. The corporate attorney ended up agreeing with me and
withholding was stopped, I held that position for 6 years without withholdings, the state DOR come in once
and garnished wages, I got that stopped too within 3 weeks and being that i have knowledge of corporate
fiscal accounting the employer had not sent out what was taken and with a little effort i got them to return
that which was taken.
I have not seen any 5K penalties since coming into the full knowledge of lawful money.

28 USC 3002 - Federal courts jurisdiction and venuethe District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, or any territory or possession of the United States.

Member states of the United Nations:
- United States of America

Anyways, Using statutes for me is fading off into the past very fast and have started embarking a journey going beyond the privileged exemptions personally. If you have not identified the solution by now there is nothing more that I can do or say to try an convince you. One does not really know for sure until they have experienced it themselves, no microscope can teach that.

[jesse james]

So you support my finding that the W3 is the reporting component.
Your example of the corporate attorney agreeing to not withhold is the reason you are successful..................not because of lawful money.
You stopped the W3 reporting!
Now the issue with johnthetaxist is he thinks by redeeming a payroll check in lawful money stops the employer from reporting the W3 which on the check the deductions have already been deducted and reported somehow magically erases the entry over at the SSA system without a finger pushing a key.
This is not the case is it because you had the state DOR come after you. The only reason that agency came after you was that agency had some reporting of you going on.
Thank you for agreeing with me.

Yes I know about commercial law.........as in commerce.
Every state of the union uses the same civil law, not common law constitution, definition of "state" as you posted. That is how I finally reached about 10 Ctcers who seen the light why CtC is a complete failure and Pete went to jail.
Me and public defender friend of mine predicted Pete going to jail 3 years prior.......and it happened.
All "US citizens" by state definition are within the commercial jurisdiction..................that one pulled about 3 ctcers away from Hendrickson.

[JohnnyCash]

Oh goodie, we get to play with the "Jesse" awhile yet. Lemme tell ya folks, our STS Club has finally arrived. I believe we now have our very own real live minion of the banking cartel! But of course, judge for yourself...

Now the issue with johnthetaxist is he thinks by redeeming a payroll check in lawful money stops the employer from reporting the W3 which on the check the deductions have already been deducted and reported somehow magically erases the entry over at the SSA system without a finger pushing a key.

Objection. That is not my position, not what I think & not what I said at all. This is an example of MISCONSTRUE. Twist the opponents words into something easily attacked. Typical Famspear.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

Incorrect. We do not agree with you nor your practice at the art of deception. Typical Famspear.

.. Like I told johny cash you havent really accomplished anything as the IRS sees you still earning reportable income.

If the IRS sees me earning income, reported or not, why haven't they come after me 3 plus years later?

Johny cash attributes his success because he is not telling everyone that he has control over the reporting which for the 99.999999999% rest of us is not the case. That in my book is a bit deceiving and untrust worthy.

A psychological warrior would say his opponent is untrustworthy, but your claims are baseless. I don't have control over the client's reporting, they're free to report, but if they do I stop working for them.

.. You may find yourself in the irs crosshairs ..
.. before the IRS hands out 5,000.00 penalties.
.. why CtC is a complete failure and Pete went to jail.

This is FEARMONGERING. The attempt to scare off anyone considering remedy. Typical Quatloser talk.

I remain convinced that Quite simply, "jesse" has no interest in remedy, or freedom. He's an agent of the dark side.